G. RAMESH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the fourth respondent in O.A.No. 1542 of 2012, dated 10.09.2014 and also in R.A.No. 64 of 2014, dated 02.01.2015 and consequently to direct the first respondent to elevate the petitioner to the post of Highly Skilled Grade I in PB-1 (5200-20200) + GP 2800 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Semi Skilled Worker in the Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project, Trichy and later promoted as skilled worker and further promoted to the post of Highly Skilled Fitter on 30.11.1999 by a duly constituted selection committee (DPC). The petitioner has been a trade union activist/leader/office bearer of HAPFE Union, which is a registered Trade Union, as per Trade Unions Act, 1926 and also recognised by the Management. The petitioner along with other members of the said Trade Union was conducting a legitimate peaceful trade union activities on 20.05.2005. However, for the said Trade union activities, members of the said Trade Union were issued with charge memorandums. Accordingly, charge memorandum No. 155/GR/16/91/DIG/HAPP/2005, dated 04.06.2005 were issued on the petitioner for imposing minor penalty under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for the alleged misconduct arising out of the lawful trade union action undertaken by him as an office bearer of registered/recognised trade union, to redress the grievances of the members of the Trade Union. Though the proceeding initiated against the petitioner was for a minor penalty, the petitioner sought for conducting an inquiry as provided under CCS (CCA) Rules and accordingly, a full-fledged inquiry was conducted and at the end, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the charges against the petitioner was not proved, vide its communication, dated 05.12.2006. However, instead of acting on the report of the inquiry officer, which is the result of an elaborate inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, having disagreed with the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, issued a notice to the petitioner, for which the petitioner submitted his detailed reply, whereby denied the allegations raised against him. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, imposed a penalty of "Censure", vide its Penalty Advice, dated 01.06.2007.

(3.) The petitioner further submits that in the meanwhile the third respondent, vide its order No. 12039/LB/HAPP/2006/Labour Bureau, dated 24.03.2006, released a Seniority List of Industrial Employees of the Organisation, wherein the petitioner stood at No. 14 out of 39 borne in the seniority list pertaining to Highly Skilled Fitter Trade. Consequent to the implementation of the recommendations of the VI Civil Procedure Code and the notification of civilians in Defence Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and the amendment issued thereto, the Highly Skilled Grade has been bifurcated equally (50% + 50%) into two distinct grades, namely Highly Skilled Gr.I and Highly Skilled Gr.II, where the petitioner ought to had been in the list of Highly Skilled Grade I in the fitter trade, instead his name was placed in SI. No. 1 in the order pertaining to Highly Skilled Grade II (i.e., in the lower grade) despite his name finds higher in the seniority list published earlier on 24.03.2006 in total disregard of all the rules and regulations framed by the respondents themselves.