UNION OF INDIA Vs. K RAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein, aggrieved by the order in O.A. No. 191/2006 dated 15-10-2007, are before us, challenging the reasoning given by the Tribunal while interpreting Rule 29 of CCS(CCA) Rules, also FR 54 as well as the consequences while quashing Annexures-A7 and All. The respondent herein, while working as a Sorting Assistant in the Railway Mail Service ('RMS' for short), was residing at P & T Taluk Quarters at Thevara, adjacent to the quarters of Deputy Superintendent of Railway Mail Service. A strike was held in the Postal Department during October 1996, wherein large number of employees participated in the strike. According to the respondent, he did not participate in the strike as a duty bound employee but, however, on 28-10-1996, at about 9.15 PM, when he met the Deputy Superintendent of RMS, Ernakulam, to express his desire and intention to work during the strike, the alleged incident in question seems to have occurred. According to the respondent, the Director of Postal Service was under a wrong impression that he trespassed into her quarters at that time. Therefore, a complaint came to be lodged on 29-10-1996 followed by another complaint by K.G. Muraleedharan, Deputy Director of Marine Products Exports Development Authority, Kochi, alleging that the respondent was using filthy language, shouted at him on 06-11-1996 at the RMS, Ernakulam, when Mr. Muraleedharan was visiting his friend P.A. Thomas. It is not in dispute that after issuance of charge sheet, departmental enquiry was conducted, ultimately opining the respondent was guilty of both the charges, compulsory retirement was the punishment imposed which was upheld by the first appellate authority at the initial stage. A revision was also filed but held against the respondent. This prompted respondent to approach the Tribunal in O.A. No. 43/2002 which came to be decided on 29-07-2003 opining that appellate authority, being a junior officer to the complainant, ought not to have decided the appeal of the respondent. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the stage of appeal, directing rehearing of the matter afresh on merits. Subsequently, appellate authority, after rehearing the matter, exonerated the respondent on both the charges with a direction to reinstate him with full pay and allowances for the period between the compulsory retirement and the reinstatement. Nothing seems to have happened immediately after this order in 2003 and as a matter of fact, he was reinstated on 08-12-2003 and all benefits as directed by the appellate authority also came to be paid to the respondent. After a lapse of 14 months of the appellate order, a notice under Section 29 of the above Rules came to be issued to the respondent proposing to revise the appellate authority's order exonerating the respondent. Subsequently, on 26-06-2005, Annexure- A7 order by revisional authority came to be passed, revising the order of appellate authority and imposing a penalty of reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years with further direction that the respondent will not earn increment during the period of reduction in pay. This was followed by another order dated 26-09-2005 alleged to be under FR 54 by the revisional authority reducing the pay and allowances which were already received by the respondent between the period from the date of compulsory retirement till reinstatement.

(2.) Aggrieved by these two orders, as the respondent/applicant had to pay total amount which is equal to 18 months' salary, he approached the Tribunal contending that in view of his retirement on 31-07-2007 and with the nature of punishment imposed in the two orders at Annexures A7 and A11, virtually he would not earn any increment during the subsistence of his service and he will also loose the benefit of DCRG after retirement on 31-07-2007. The grounds of challenge in the application so far as Annexures-A7 and All are concerned mainly on the question of time limit within which the revisional authority could have exercised its suo motu powers in revising the appellate order. According to the respondent, in the absence of any indication of period and Rule 29(1)(vi) of the above Rules, even the words used 'at any time' and Rule 29 would not assist the authorities to initiate revisional proceedings after a lapse of 14 months from the date of the appellate order. It was also contended, only with malafide intention with the sole purpose of victimising the respondent, such course of action was adopted. Therefore, he sought for quashing of Annexures-A7 and A11. So far as Annexure-A11 is concerned, respondent contended that powers and FR 54 were also not exercised within a period of six months as contemplated under the procedure. Therefore, Annexure-A11 also was bad in law. He also brought on record certain facts indicating that his compulsory retirement was not in accordance with the procedure and the disciplinary authority was not justified in imposing such punishment. Therefore, the appellate authority, on facts, rightly found that no such incident took place as alleged in the two charges by the Department. His main grievance is that the disciplinary authority totally ignored the evidence placed on record and intentionally imposed the punishment as stated above. Of course, there was serious resistance of these allegations against the Department by the petitioners herein, denying all the facts submitted by the respondent especially with regard to the participation in strike. According to the petitioners, the respondent participated in the strike. So far as the participation in strike, according to the petitioners, respondent stayed away from duty during the relevant period of strike by availing leave with false medical certificates. They also contended that if there was genuineness of the intention of the respondent to participate in the strike, he ought to have informed the superior officer much earlier and not by knocking at the doors of the complainant at an odd hour.

(3.) Ultimately, after considering entire material, Tribunal opined that there was no exercise of revisional power within a reasonable time and, therefore, there was no justification in issuing Annexure-A7 followed by Annexure-A11. A detailed discussion from paragraph 13 onwards is made by the Tribunal to conclude that application deserves to be allowed. Aggrieved by this, the present petition is filed.