LAWS(KAR)-2015-11-61

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. M. ASWATHANARAYANA

Decided On November 05, 2015
Union of India and Ors. Appellant
V/S
M. Aswathanarayana Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 18.6.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 324/2011 is called in question in this writ petition by the Union of India and others.

(2.) THE records reveal that the respondent herein was working in Employees' Provident Fund Organisation ('EPFO' for short). He was promoted to the post of APFC by an order dated 15.6.2001 on ad -hoc basis by following due procedure. However, he was subsequently posted as APFC, Sub Regional Office, Vellore, by an order dated 18.6.2001. He was placed under suspension on 8.8.2002 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The said order was revoked on 10.3.2003 and he was reinstated to the duties subsequently as APFC at Regional Office, Chennai. Thereafter, the Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the respondent under Rule 10 of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971, for imposition of major penalty. The enquiry proceedings though started in the year 2001, were completed only in the year 2009. The respondent was charged that, while he was working as APFC in EPFO, Sub Regional Office, Vellore during the period 2001 -02, caused fraudulent withdrawal of Provident Fund and Pension amount by Sri. Dhandapani, depriving the benefit to the actual beneficiary, namely, Sri. J. Swaminathan and thereby caused loss to EPFO.

(3.) THE minutes of the Screening Committee constituted for the purpose of ad -hoc promotion of EO/AAO, Superintendent and Private Secretary to the post of APFC, clearly reveal that it was proposed to fill up 31 Direct Recruitment vacancies of APFC by ad -hoc promotion of eligible officers in the feeder cadres of EO/AAO, Superintendent and PS. It is also clear from the minutes that three vacancies arose due to retirement of three APFCs, one on 31.4.2001, two on 31.05.2001 and 11 more are anticipated due to retirement before 31.12.2001. The Screening Committee selected certain number of persons including the respondent as APFC on ad -hoc basis only after having satisfied that those officers fulfill eligibility conditions prescribed in the Rules for promotion. It is also made clear that the ad -hoc promotion was done on the basis of seniority -cum -fitness and the benchmark prescribed was "Good". Thus, the minutes of the Screening Committee as confirmed by EPFO/employer would clearly reveal that all the procedure contemplated under the relevant Rules for appointing the persons of RPFC is followed by virtue of the appointment of certain officers including the respondent to the post of APFC. Though the promotion APFCs was termed as on ad -hoc basis, the same was made after following due procedure and as per Rules. The minutes of the meeting which considered overall assessment clearly disclose that the respondent's performance is assessed as "Very Good", which means the respondent's assessment was more than the bench mark prescribed.