E.K. NARAYANAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner, wherein, he impugned an order of punishment imposed against him producing it as Annexure A1 - holding that no cause for interference has been attracted.

(2.) Sri.K.V.Pavithran learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, even assuming that all the charges against his client are taken to be true, the punishment imposed namely 'withholding 15% of his monthly pension for a period of one year' is unjust, unconscionable and therefore, unconstitutional. He, explained that the allegation against his client was that he had used unfair and intemperate language in some of his representations made against his superior officers; but that his specific defence was that the Disciplinary Authority had personal vendetta against him. He showed us from the report of the enquiry, produced as Annexure A8, that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was that his client 'had used language which was not courteous' (sic) and that, read in the context it was issued, would amount to grave misconduct. He contended that his client had not published his representations or made it known to anyone else, but only to his superior officers and that his intent was therefore, only to bring to their notice what was really happening in the department. He prayed that, therefore, this Appeal be allowed and the impugned order of the learned Tribunal be set aside.

(3.) Sri.T.V.Vinu learned Central Government Counsel, however, countered the afore submissions showing us that the language used by the petitioner was of such nature that it was designed to attack the integrity of the entire system and show every officer in bad light. He impressed upon us that the allegations made against the superior officers by the petitioner were of so grave nature, that it defies any reasoning and is in the nature of omnibus imputations, calculated to insinuate and cause disrepute. He then pointed that, in Annexure A8 Enquiry Report, all these aspects have been properly considered, which then led to the Disciplinary Authority to issue appropriate orders.