B.N. UMESH Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, (MINISTRY OF LABOUR GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, (VIGILANCE), (MINISTRY OF LABOUR GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the charge of acceptance of illegal gratification while working as Upper Division Clerk in accounts section of the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore, during the period from March 1994 to September 1994, disciplinary action commenced against the petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner has committed gross mis -conduct in as much as he failed to take immediate action to process the advance application in Form -31, submitted by Provident Fund account holder one Sri. A.E. Siddaiah and thereby delayed his claim with an ulterior motive of taking illegal gratification from him. Since the above act of petitioner has exhibited lack of integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of E.P.F. Organization and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which is mutatis mutandis applicable to employees of E.P.F. Organization, charge sheet came to be served on the petitioner. Petitioner denied the charges framed against him. Consequently, enquiry was ordered to be conducted to prove the veracity of the charges. After due procedure, the enquiry officer gave his report on 03.08.1998 stating that the charges are proved beyond doubt. During the subsistence of enquiry, criminal prosecution was also launched against petitioner in respect of acceptance of illegal gratification under the provisions of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in C.C. No. 61/1995. The trial Court convicted the petitioner by the judgment and order dated 08.07.1998 and imposed sentence of imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Pursuant to such order of conviction passed by the trial Court, the petitioner was dismissed from service, as per order dated 19.07.1999 of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore, in exercise of powers under Rule 8 of The Employees' Provident Fund Staff (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 704/1998 before this Court. This Court allowed the appeal and set -aside the order of conviction and consequently, acquitted the petitioner by judgment dated 19.06.2004. Thereafter, order of re -instatement was passed on 13.04.2005 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Karnataka. It is made clear in the very order that the re -instatement is without pre -judice to the departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner on the alleged mis -conduct by the petitioner. The departmental proceeding was completed against the petitioner and the disciplinary authority has held that the charges leveled against petitioner are proved. Thus in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 8 of The Employees' Provident Fund Staff (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner imposed penalty of reduction to the lower stage in the time scale of SSA (Social Security Assistant) to the level of Rs. 4,000/ - for a period of two years on the petitioner. It is relevant to note here itself that Upper Division Clerk is now re -designated as Social Security Assistant.

(2.) AS against the order of disciplinary authority imposing penalty of reduction to the lower stage in the time scale of Social Security Assistant, petitioner filed departmental appeal before the appellate authority which came to be dismissed on 18.03.2008. Consequently, the order of the disciplinary authority is confirmed by the appellate authority. Questioning both orders, petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in application No. 251/2009 which came to be dismissed by the impugned order on 15.02.2012

(3.) SRI Harikrishna S. Holla, learned Advocate on behalf of respondent argued in support of orders of the authority as well as order of the Central Administrative Tribunal by contending that disciplinary action is independent of criminal case and since the petitioner is acquitted on technical grounds, he cannot be allowed to make use of such an order of acquittal in departmental enquiry.