V S ASHVEKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 2nd January, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, in its Camp at Goa.

(2.) The petitioner was employed as a Civilian Motor Driver- GD-II in the Naval establishment with effect from 16.11.1979. On 6 th July, 2001, a charge-sheet was served on him framing five Articles of Charges and imputation of misconduct. The substratum of the charges was that the petitioner had disobeyed several orders, oral as well as written, issued to him from time to time. Firstly, he had refused to collect monthly salary from August, 2000 to April, 2001 despite written orders of his superiors. It was also charged that he refused to collect the transfer/movement order issued to him by the Headquarters, Goa Naval Area on 18th December, 2000 and another Movement Order dated 23rd February, 2001. Thirdly, it is alleged that he disobeyed the verbal and written orders of his superiors dated 2nd April 2001 and 28th April, 2001 by refusing to drive the service vehicle for official commitments, thereby violating Rule 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1964. Further charges against the petitioner were that he refused to accept the written suspension order issued by the Headquarters, Goa Naval Area dated 10th May, 2001 and by INS Mandovi dated 18th May, 2001, and he failed to report to INS Mandovi from 21st May, 2001. By his reply dated 25th July, 2001, the petitioner answered the charge-sheet by admitting his guilt and all the charges levelled against him. He, however, stated that he was mentally disturbed. He submitted that on account of sickness, and misunderstanding between him and the superiors, he was mentally disturbed and, therefore, he could not control himself. Finally in his reply, he apologized for the mistakes committed by him and prayed that only a minor penalty of censure, or withholding of his promotion, or by recovering from him any pecuniary loss for his negligence or breach of orders; or withholding of increments of pay be imposed on him. An Inquiry Officer was appointed and the inquiry was conducted. The petitioner was given an opportunity to put up his case. He was put certain questions, which he answered. In his answers, he reiterated that he was pleading guilty to the charges levelled against him. He also stated that he did not wish to examine any witness in support of his defence. Thereupon, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report recording the finding of guilt against the petitioner. Thereupon, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of compulsory retirement. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate Authority against the order of compulsory retirement was dismissed. The petitioner then moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") which dismissed his appeal and confirmed the order of compulsory retirement. That order is impugned in this petition.

(3.) Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before us that the petitioner was given an assurance that if he pleaded guilty, only a minor punishment will be imposed upon him. It was on this assurance that the petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges and despite this, the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on him contrary to the assurance. This was not legal. In support, he referred to and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kasambhai Abdulrehmanbhai Sheikh and ors. vs. State of Gujarat and another, ((1980) 3 SCC 120). Secondly, Mr. Sonak submitted that the first appellate Authority has not considered all the points raised in the appeal and has merely referred to what was stated in the Inquiry Report. He, therefore, submitted that the order was bad in law. In support of his contention, he referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in R.P. Bhatt vs. Union of India and ors., ((1986) 2 SCC 651).