P.VENU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We posted three Original Petitions [O.P.(CAT) Nos.119/2016, 16/2019 and 268/2019] together, from three separate orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal ["CAT" or "Tribunal" for brevity]. The same applicant before the Tribunal is a Government servant, who retired, as Assistant Salt Commissioner, on 30.06.2013. Two matters [O.P (CAT) Nos.119/2016 and 16/2019] are with respect to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant, one of which ended with imposition of penalty. The Tribunal though found the allegation of misconducts having been proved, relegated the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for consideration of reduction of penalty. In the second Original Application ['OA' for brevity], in which the disciplinary proceedings had not concluded, the Tribunal found the initiation to be improper and allowed the OA, against which the Union of India is before us. While the above two matters were pending, the applicant was denied gratuity and commuted value of pension; the provisions enabling such withholding was challenged as unconstitutional before the Tribunal, which OA stood rejected. The third Original Petition [O.P(CAT) No.268/2019] is filed by the applicant against that rejection order of the Tribunal. Though the very same applicant is before us, we pass separate judgments in the three Original Petitions. We refer to the parties from their status in the OA and Annexures as produced in the OA.

(2.) Here, the applicant was proceeded against on three allegations leading to three charges of misconduct, which were found to have been proved at the inquiry. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction of 20% of the monthly pension payable to the applicant for a period of five years. The applicant has raised various grounds against the inquiry, from its inception. It is contended that the approval of the Disciplinary Authority in Annexure A-1 is not proper for reason of there being no explicit opinion expressed by the authority. There is a mandate for such expression of opinion as has been found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman- Cum- M.D., Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha [(2011) 5 SCC 142] and Union of India v. B.V.Gopinath [(2014) 1 SCC 351]. It is contended that there is also a mandate for a preliminary hearing in which the applicant had produced the decisions of the Tribunal & the High Court having direct bearing on two charges, which would have been dropped, if properly considered. It is argued that Rule 14(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 ['CCA Rules' for brevity] requires that the Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the imputation of the misconduct or misbehaviour, arrive at an opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into it to find the truth. These grounds are raised on the initiation of inquiry itself.

(3.) The applicant does not have any allegation as to the disciplinary proceedings having been held in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the applicant has very appealing arguments against Annexure A-3 order of the Disciplinary Authority, which is challenged as not being a speaking order. Rule 15(4) of the CCA Rules specifically require the Disciplinary Authority to enter into findings on the representation made by the Government servant as also on all or any of the Articles of Charges, on which findings alone can the penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 be imposed. There is absolutely no finding of the Disciplinary Authority discernible from Annexure A-3 order, which only records the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the recommendations of the Union Public Service Commission ['UPSC' for brevity]. Though representations were filed, both against the inquiry report and the advice of the UPSC, the order states that the later representation was received. Quite a contrary stand has been taken in the counter affidavit, which speaks of a representation having been received, but beyond the time stipulated; which is also asserted to have been considered in the order. The initiation of inquiry was improper and the final order passed is also vitiated, is the argument of the petitioner-applicant, who appeared in person before us.