UNION OF INDIA Vs. K. SURI BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are the two appeals filed by the Union of India; Appeal No.1320/2010, is against the order dtd. 14/10/2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.9541 of 2008 and Appeal No. 1323/2010 is against the order dtd. 22/1/2009, of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad passed in Writ Petition No.494/2009. The issue in both the Civil Appeals raised is identical, but for the sake of convenience, for facts we would be only referring to Civil Appeal No.1320 of 2010.

(2.) The High Court in the impugned order dtd. 14/10/2008 has allowed the Writ Petition of the respondent by setting aside the order (dtd. 18/3/2008), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short 'CAT') which upheld the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings by the Nuclear Fuel Complex-Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'NFC' or 'Department'), against the respondent under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short 'CCA Rules 1965'). The short question which was there before the High Court and which is now before us, is whether the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent (who is admittedly a workman), could be initiated under the CCA Rules 1965 or it could be done only under the Standing Orders certified for the NFC-Hyderabad on 27/8/1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Standing Orders"), under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as '1946 Act').

(3.) NFC was set up in the 1970s, as a constituent unit of the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. The respondent was appointed as a 'helper' w.e.f. 5/5/2001 in NFC. Helper is the class IV post and it seems that the eligibility requirement for the post was a Class VI certificate which the respondent had submitted in order to get the appointment. On 23/4/2003 he received a memorandum which said that he had given a false declaration that he had passed Class VI as the transfer certificate of Class VI submitted by him was found to be fake for which a disciplinary action was to be initiated against him under CCA Rules 1965. In response, the respondent denied the allegations and asserted that his certificate is genuine and further contended that the disciplinary proceedings, if any, would be governed by the Standing Orders and not under the CCA Rules 1965, and ultimately, he filed an OA before the CAT, Hyderabad, with a prayer to set aside the proceedings against him, inter alia, on the grounds that the disciplinary proceedings against him can only be initiated under the "Standing Orders", and not under the CCA Rules. The CAT, dismissed his O.A. vide its order dtd. 18/3/2008. The CAT relied on his appointment order, as well as the circular dtd. 12/5/2005 issued by the Department to clarify that their employees were governed by the CCA Rules and not Standing Orders. This order of CAT, was challenged by the respondent in a writ petition before the High Court which was allowed and the order of the CAT was set aside and the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were quashed.