SURESH SAKHARAM SARANKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 1-7-1999 whereby the Tribunal has confirmed penalty imposed by the appellate authority of compulsory retirement for the charges levelled against the petitioner.

(2.) The undisputed facts in the present case are as follows : the petitioner was appointed as a Cleaner in the Mail Motor Service department of the Post on 20-8-1969. On 21-9-1989, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that he had remained absent unauthorisedly and that he had contravened the service rules by proceeding on a fast unto death. An enquiry was held against the petitioner ex-parte. The petitioner contends that he did not remain present at the enquiry since the charge-sheet along with the imputation of charges served on him was in the English language and he could not understand the same. The enquiry officer conducting the enquiry held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved by his report on 24-3-1990. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service after accepting the report of the enquiry officer. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal. The appellate authority by his order dated 21-10-1992 converted the penalty of removal to that of compulsory retirement on humanitarian grounds. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed Original Application No. 252 of 1993. After the pleadings were complete, the Application was heard by the tribunal which has held that the charge of unauthorised absence ought not to have been framed. According to the Tribunal, there was material on record which indicates that a minor penalty had already been imposed on the petitioner in respect of the same charge for having remained absent on certain days in May and June, 1989. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the respondents that the earlier charge was one of remaining absent habitually and that the charge as levelled in the charge-sheet dated 21-9-1989 was of unauthorised absence. The tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the charge ought not to have been framed since the charge in respect of the absence on the days mentioned could have been incorporated in the earlier charge-sheet. Besides, the Tribunal found that although in the earlier charge-sheet, it had been mentioned that the applicant was unauthorisedly absent from 5-6-1989 to 8-6-1989, the charge-sheet of 21-9-1989 indicated that the petitioner was actually present on those days but did not perform his duty. 2a. As regards the second charge of the petitioner having gone on a hunger strike, the Tribunal has found that this action of the petitioner was in contravention of the service and disciplinary rules applicable to the petitioner. The Tribunal found that the petitioner in fact had admitted that he had undertaken a hunger strike and therefore, there was no need to separately prove the charge. The Tribunal was of the view that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the nature of the penalty imposed by the authorities, the appellate authority having reduced the same to compulsory retirement.

(3.) Mr. Karnik, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was not in a language known to him. He further submits that the charge of the petitioner having undertaken a hunger strike was not established and assuming the same had been proved either by the petitioner's admission or otherwise, the penalty imposed was too harsh. He urges that the punishment of compulsory retirement is not commensurate with the misconduct committed by the petitioner, namely, of having undertaken a hunger strike. He, therefore, submits that the judgment of the Tribunal is required to be set aside.