L MATHIVANAN Vs. KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 07.11.2007 passed by the second respondent, the Chief Executive Officer, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Mumbai imposing a major penalty of reduction of pay of two stages from Rs.10,200-Rs.9,650/- in the time scale of pay of Rs.8,000/--275-13,500/- for a period of one year with effect from 01.12.2007 as confirmed by the first respondent in the order on appeal dated 26.08.2008/10.09.2008 and to quash the same with further direction to the respondents to refix the scale of pay of the petitioner as prior to the impugned order and also to pay all attendant benefits with arrears and pass such orders.

(2.) MRS.A.Arulmozhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed inter alia the following grounds: Firstly, that the impugned order passed by the second respondent as confirmed by the first respondent is vague; secondly, it is a case of no evidence, thirdly, the findings reached by the Enquiry Officer has no basis much less evidence to pass any order resulting penalty of reduction of pay of two stages and finally, it was argued that both the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority have passed the impugned orders without application of mind.

(3.) WHEN the charges are not specific and directly implicating the petitioner's involvement in any of the charges or irregularities, the second respondent instead of polling the charges as vague wrongly hold the charges against the petitioner as proved. WHEN the matter was brought to the notice of the first respondent by way of appeal, the first respondent also without issuing that there is no specific or direct involvement by the petitioner without giving any substantial reason wrongly dismissed the appeal. Therefore, she further contended by adding a submission that when no substantial evidence was adduced against the petitioner, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse because there is no evidence against the petitioner to say that the petitioner was at any point of time was responsible for passing any order or his own. Simply when the Rural Employment Generation Programme (REGP) among other schemes was introduced from 1996-1997 onwards providing loan facilities through Banks to new entrepreneurs, as per the said scheme, the KVIC would provide 25% subsidy to the General category and 30% for special categories viz., SC, ST, Women, OBC, Minorities, etc., The said subsidy is called as Margin Money and later on it is treated as back ended subsidy. During the year 2002 and 2003, when C.K.Mohandas was serving as the Assistant Director of Sub Office, KVIC, Coimbatore under the administrative control of State Office, Chennai, he has received an application directly from prospective entrepreneurs and forward the same to the Banks under the Rural Employment Generation Programme. WHEN the State Director issued the work allocation to Mr.C.K.Mohandas in his letter No.SOT/II/EST/WA dated 10.03.2003 there is a specific note submitted by the Superintendent for issuing the order on 08.03.2003 to the petitioner who was then working as the Assistant Director at State Office, Chennai. Therefore the petitioner has submitted file to the State Director and the State Director has issued the order on 10.03.2003. The second important thing is after the order dated 10.03.2003 was issued by the State Directors, the said C.K.Mohandas , Assistant Director, Sub Office, KVIC, Coimbatore in his letter dated 10.03.2003 further requested the State Director, KVIC, Chennai to give retrospective effect to work allocation with effect from October 2002. Again, the said letter was received by the State Office, Chennai on 25.03.2003 after properly processed by the dealing Assistant which was subsequently submitted to the Superintendent on 27.03.2003 and the said Superintendent with his remarks submitted again the file to the petitioner who in turn forwarded to the State Director for orders on the same date. Though the procedure contemplates that the file with draft letter and final order passed by the State Director to be cleared through the Assistant Director viz., the petitioner but, in the present case, the file was cleared by the State Director on 29.03.2003 because the letter dated 20.03.2003 was sent by the State Director granting retrospective effect to the work allocation order given on 10.03.2003 clearly states that the same will take effect from October 2002 and the said file was cleared by the State Director on 29.03.2003. Therefore, when the draft letter and the fair copy of the letter dated 23.03.2003 was neither routed through the petitioner nor processed through the petitioner, the petitioner can never do found a fault with. Thus, when the petitioner was in no way connected to the order dated 20.03.2003, the issuance of the charge memo dated 09.06.2006 is fully motivated with non application of mind and more so, not supported with any specific charge against the petitioner. On that basis, it was mentioned that the second respondent passing the impugned order is not only without any basis but when the charge itself as vague as there is no direct imputation against the petitioner implicating the petitioner anyway responsible for passing the order dated 20.03.2003 ignoring the nexus and connectivity between the petitioner and the crucial order dated 20.03.2003, it will be totally unacceptable to allege that the petitioner was instrumental in issue of retrospective authorised order dated 20.03.2003. Secondly, it was further contended that as per Section 27 2A of KVIC, only the Commission has got the power to issue the retrospective orders. Therefore, on the basis of Section 27-2A, if we look into the present case, the State Director has issued the orders which is in total violation of the provisions of the KVIC Act. If this is the position, suitable action should be taken against the State Director particularly when there is no specific evidence that the petitioner was instrumental to issue the said order. She went on to add yet another submission stating that the non production of evidence by the Presenting Officer during the enquiry on the charges the petitioner who allegedly pressurized the staff for making insertion in the noting of the Superintendent, has never been considered either by the Enquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority viz., the second respondent at the time of passing the impugned order or by the Appellate Authority. Moreso, when the draft letter dated 20.03.2003 issued by the State Director was not even produced by the presenting officer during the enquiry inspite of presenting the same it would be legally unsustainable for the respondent to say the petitioner was in anyway instrumental in passing the unauthorised order dated 20.03.2003.