Important pointFor application of Rule 19(ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the basic requirement is that a conclusion has to be recorded that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry proceedings before passing the order of dismissal.

Headnote:Service Law—Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965—Rule 19(ii)—Termination of services for absconding from duty—Appellants invoking Rule 19(ii) on ground that appellant did not offer any explanation for his wilful absence from duty—Appellants failed to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry—Respondent was working as Principal in appellant Vidyalaya—His application for sanction of earned leave with permission to go abroad was rejected by appellant on ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him—Respondent did not report back for duty till 2.7.1997—Proceedings under the Rules were initiated against him—His services were terminated by invoking Rule 19(ii) of the Rules—Whether imposition of penalty of dismissal in absence of disciplinary enquiry proceedings was justified—(No)—Whether High Court was justified in holding that respondent was entitled to full back wages—(No).
Held : For application of Rule 19(ii) in the background of Rule 14 of the Rules the basic requirement is that a conclusion has to be recorded that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry proceedings. Such a finding does not appear to have been recorded. Therefore, the views expressed by the CAT as affirmed by the High Court do not suffer from any infirmity. (Para 11)
The respondent was not entitled to full back wages which according to the High Court was natural consequence. That part of the High Court order is set aside. When the question of determining the entitlement of a person to back wages is concerned, the employee has to show that he was not gainfully employed. The initial burden is on him. After and if he places materials in that regard, the employer can bring on record materials to rebut the claim. In the instant case, the respondent had neither pleaded nor placed any material in that regard. Since the present appeal arises from proceedings declaring the respondent as “Absconder” we make it clear that if the appellants are desirous of initiating any departmental proceedings in terms of CAT’s order they can do so within two months, if not already done. The proceedings shall be completed within further period of three months i.e. within five months from today. (Paras 15 and 16)

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appellant’s writ petition CWP No. 2965 - CAT of 2003. Appellants had questioned correctness of the order dated 27.11.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (in short ‘CAT’) in OA No. 124/HK/2001.

3. Background facts in a nutshell which are essential are as under :

Respondent joined service as Principal in the appellant-Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. In December 1996 he applied for sanction of earned leave with permission to go abroad. He sent letter dated 6.3.1997 for grant of permission and sanction of leave from 10.3.1997 to 7.7.1997. His application for leave was rejected by appellant No. 3 vide telegram dated 13.3.1997. His request for permission to go abroad was also declined by the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi (appellant No. 2 herein) vide letter dated 17.5.1997 on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him. Respondent No. 1 did not report back for duty till 2.7.1997. In the meanwhile, proceedings under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, the Rules) were initiated against him and vide order dated 5.5.1999, he was declared as absconding from duty and his services were terminated by invoking Rule 19(ii) of the Rules. Appeal filed by him against the order of punishment was dismissed by appellant No. 2 vide order dated 14/19.6.2000.

4. Respondent challenged orders dated 5.5.1999 and 14/19.6.2000 before the CAT on the ground that no material was available with appellant No. 3 which could justify invoking of Rule 19(ii) and he could not have passed the order of dismissal from service without holding regular enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules. He also levelled allegation of mala fides against appellant No. 3 and pleaded that all the actions taken by the said appellant should be declared nullity.

5. In their reply, the appellants justified the invoking of Rule 19(ii) on the ground that respondent No. 1 did not respond to the notices issued by appellant No. 3 and did not offer any explanation for his wilful absence from duty for a long period of more than 2 years.

6. CAT quashed the order of punishment as well as the appellate order by holding that the various provisions of Rules were not complied with. It was held that the appellants failed to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry. With reference to Rule 19 it was held that the basic requirements of that provision were not complied with. Imposition of penalty was held to be not in order, in the absence of disciplinary enquiry proceedings. However, liberty was granted to the appellants to initiate disciplinary proceedings from the stage of serving a charge sheet on the respondent on the acts of misconduct which may be though fit for such proceedings and thereafter hold enquiry proceedings in accordance with the Rules. Tribunal further directed that respondent-employee was to be re-instated in service with all consequential benefits from the date of dismissal from service.

7. Before the High Court it was submitted by the present appellants that the authorities were justified in invoking Rule 19(ii) as the respondent did not respond to the notices issued and did not offer any explanation for his wilful absence from duty for a long period of more than two years.

8. High Court concurred with the views of the Tribunal that the disciplinary authority had not recorded reasons for dispensing with the enquiry and no material was produced to show that there existed reasons which justified dispensing with regular enquiry. The High Court further found that direction given for payment of back wages from date of dismissal was in order. It held that though the respondent-employee had not ple

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 59

Important pointFor application of Rule 19(ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the basic requirement is that a conclusion has to be recorded that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry proceedings before passing the order of dismissal.

Cases Referred (4)