S. SANYASI NAIDU Vs. CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents. Challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order dtd. 23/7/2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), Hyderabad Bench, in O.A.No.154 of 2002. Unsuccessful applicant in the aforesaid Original Application is the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

(2.) The applicant-petitioner herein was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in Naval Dock Yard, Visakhapatnam in the year 1978 and initially he was posted against a causal vacancy. Subsequently, in the year 1982, the services of the applicant-petitioner were regularized in the said category. Obviously, on a complaint received by the respondent-organization, the respondent-organization addressed a letter bearing No.CE/2721/SSN/LDC, dtd. 19/2/1991 to the District Collectors of Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram Districts, requesting them to verify and to submit a report with regard to social status of the applicant- petitioner. In response to the said letter, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, vide letter bearing D/Dist/No.2121/91/TW, dtd. 28/10/1992, informed the respondent-authorities that the enquiry revealed that the petitioner belongs to "Koppulavelama", backward community, but not "Kammara" Scheduled Tribe. The District Collector, Vizianagaram, vide letter D/Dis. No.1662/91/C7, dtd. 28/1/1993 informed the respondent-authorities that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothavalasa Mandal, reported that there is no such person by name Sabbavarapu Sanyasi Naidu, S/o Samudram in Ganisettipalem of Kothavalasa Mandal and there are no "Konda Kapu" people in the village and there are no families of surname as "Sabbavarapu" in the said village. Obviously, basing on the said letters received from the office of the District Collectors, Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram, the General Manager, vide Memorandum No.VAE/1111/C/Major/SSEN, dtd. 20/4/1993 issued charge memo, framing the following two Articles of charge:

(3.) According to the petitioner, responding to the said charge memo, he submitted his explanation on 11/5/1993. Thereafter, regular enquiry was initiated by appointing an enquiry officer, who submitted a report on 11/1/2001 holding that the charge framed against the petitioner stood proved. The disciplinary authority, after receipt of the report of the enquiry officer, issued a show-cause notice, enclosing a copy of the enquiry officer's report to the petitioner. In response to the same, the petitioner herein submitted an explanation on 5/2/2001, denying the charges and petitioner eventually requested the disciplinary authority to drop further action in the matter. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent by way of an order bearing No.CE/9102/91, dtd. 19/6/2001 inflicted the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. After unsuccessfully availing the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority, the petitioner herein approached the Tribunal by way of filing the present O.A.No.154 of 2002. The Tribunal, vide order dtd. 22/7/2005, dismissed the said Original Application.