ANANTHARAMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P6 order of suspension passed by the 1st respondent in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-r.(1) of R.10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, and also Ext. P5 memorandum by which he was asked to show cause against the proposal to impose a penalty of dismissal from service. The first respondent is the Union of India and the 2nd respondent, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin. The petitioner entered service as a Lower Division Clerk attached to the Customs House, Madras, on 9-8-1946. On 5-6-1973 he was promoted and appointed as Senior Grade Preventive Officer. From April 1952 he has been in the Customs House, Cochin. By order dated 24-2-1975, Ext. P1, the Additional Collector of Customs placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from 24-2-1975, in exercise of the powers conferred by R.10 of the rules. In October 1975 an Enquiry was ordered by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner under R.14 of the Rules. A memo of charges together with statement of articles of charges was given to the petitioner and he was called upon to submit his written statement of defence. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Invoking the provisions of R.14(2) of the Rules, the 2nd respondent issued an order on 3-1-1976 by which he directed that an enquiry authority should be appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. The Enquiry Authority submitted his conclusions. The petitioner was asked by the 2nd respondent to show cause against the provisional conclusions arrived at by the 2nd respondent, agreeing with the Enquiry report that the article of charges have been proved against him, and proposing to impose on him the penalty of punishment of removal from service. The petitioner made a representation in September, 1976 to the above notice. The 2nd respondent thereafter passed an order dated 23rd October, 1976 holding that the petitioner had contravened R.3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1954, and imposed on him the punishment of reduction in rank, to that of Preventive Officer, Grade I, for 6 years from 24-2-1975. It was also directed that the petitioner's pay during the period of suspension should be limited to the subsistence allowance drawn. The said order of the 2nd respondent was not challenged and so it became final. The 2nd respondent revoked the order of suspension as per Ext. P2 in October 1976 under R.10(5)(c) of the rules. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner joined duty on the forenoon of 23-10-1976.

(2.) The first respondent thereafter issued an order Ext. P3 which was served on the petitioner on 7-4-1977 in exercise of the powers under R.48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, informing him that having completed 30 years of service qualifying for pension on 9th August, 1976, the petitioner shall retire from service on the forenoon of the day following the date of expiry of three months computed from the date of service of the notice on him. He was further informed that he could make representation, if he wanted, against Ext. P3 within three weeks from the receipt of the letter. The petitioner submitted a representation on 22-4-1977 against Ext. P3 order. Since no orders were passed on the representation made by him, the petitioner approached this Court in O.P. No 2278 of 1977 for an expeditious disposal of the representation against Ext. P3. This Court directed the Central Board of Excise and Customs to dispose of the petitioner's representation expeditiously and not to retire the petitioner from service till then. Thereafter the petitioner was informed by Ext. P4 that the President of India has decided not to effect his retirement in terms of Ext. P3. However, this was followed by a memo dated 9-12-1977 calling upon the petitioner to submit his representations as required under R.29 of the rules against the provisional decision of the President of India to enhance the penalty imposed by the 2nd respondent to that of dismissal from service. This is marked as Ext. P5. A detailed representation was filed against Ext. P5. While the matter was so pending Ext. P6 order was passed by the 1st respondent placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect.

(3.) Ext. P6 order is attacked on the ground that it is bad in law, without jurisdiction and is violative of R.10. It is contended that the said rule can be invoked only when disciplinary proceedings against an officer is contemplated or is pending or in the opinion of the authority, the officer has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interests of the security of the State or a case against an officer in respect of a criminal offence is under enquiry or trial. Ext. P6 does not repeal the existence of any accusation against the petitioner. The only remaining clause under which R.10 can be invoked is if disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or are pending. According to the petitioner no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner. Disciplinary proceedings were originally initiated by issuing Ext. P1 and the same culminated in the order dated 23rd October, 1976 issued by the 2nd respondent imposing the penalty mentioned above. It is further contended that by invoking R.29 of the Rules, for imposing an enhanced penalty the disciplinary proceedings which had come to an end, could not be revived. Ext. P5 memo calls upon the petitioner to show cause why the proposed punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him. Ext. P5 according to the petitioner violates the principles of natural justice, has serious adverse civil consequences on him and is passed after inordinate delay. Further it is stated that under the proviso to R.29 of the rules, where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of R.11 of the appeal rules or enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be revived to any of the penalties mentioned above, an enquiry in the manner laid down in R.14 after giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the penalty proposed is necessary. Ext. P5 does not indicate that any such enquiry is proposed to be held. Therefore, Ext. P5 is not in valid exercise of the power conferred under R.29 of the Rules.