UNION OF INDIA Vs. S GANGAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No.684/97, dated 10-3-1999.

(2.) Respondent No.l who worked as Senior D.P.O., South Eastern Railway, Waltair retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-6-1996. The second writ petitioner by his proceedings No. DCPO/G/CON/SC/96/MJR/759, dated 22-4-1996 issued a Memorandum of charge-memo proposing to hold enquiry against him under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 by enclosing articles of charge-sheet in Annexures I and II. The respondent No.l challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal stating that there is inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and atter retirement if any disciplinary proceedings are sought to be initiated, the same can be done only with the prior approval and sanction of the President; that the misconduct alleged against him relates back to the year 1988 and issuance of Charge Memo is against Rule 2038 of IRSA Rules, 1968. It was the further case of R-1 before the Tribunal that the Railway Board in its letter No.P/6/40/ 193/K, dated 10-4-1996 has clearly stipulated that if the disciplinary proceedings are not initiated before the retirement of the railway employee, it can be done so only with the sanction of the President and shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. The Railway Board has further clarified the same in its letter dated 22-9-95 clearly stating that under Rule 9 of the Rules the date of occurrence of the event should have been found out so that the date on which four years time limit is known and action should have been taken. The petitioner No.2 has issued a Charge Memo after a lapse of 9 years, hence the charge memo issued is not in accordance with law and initiation of disciplinary action after long period offends the reasonable opportunity and that he may not be in a position to properly defend the same, therefore, it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution of India and prayed quashing of the Charge Memo.

(3.) The writ petitioners who are the respondents before the Tribunal filed a counter stating that after obtaining the first advice of the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, they thought it fit to initiate disciplinary proceedings, for certain misconduct alleged to have been committed by the respondent No.1 during the period 1988 while he was working as D.P.O. South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur. The competent authority considered it proper and necessary to place him under suspension before the date of retirement i.e., 30-6-96. As per letter dated 14-9-1989 the competent authority considered it necessary to place him under suspension from 28-6-96. Accordingly, proceedings No, DRM/CON/4 dated 28-6-1996 placing the respondent No.1 under suspension with the approval of the competent authority pending disciplinary proceedings were drawn. When the suspension order was sought to be served on the respondent No.1, he after going through the same, refused to take it in the presence of N. Prabhakar Rao, APO (II), Waltair and A. Rama Rao, Senior Steno to ADRM/Waltair who had gone to the residence of the respondent No.1 to serve the order of suspension on the night of 28-6-96 around 20-30 hours. The said officers also submitted a report about refusal to receive the suspension order by R-1. The competent authority by order dated 16-7-1996 confirmed the suspension order in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules. Challenging the same, the respondent No.l filed OA No.844/96 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated 17-7-1996 issued the following direction: