GOURANGA CHARAN POI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the legality and propriety of the Order Dated 7.4.1998 (Annexure -9) passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in O.A. No. 127 of 1992, refusing to quash the Orders Dated 23.10.1989 and 28.02.1991 under Annexures -7 and 8 respectively, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with a prayer to quash Annexures -7, 8 and 9 and for a direction to Opposite Party No. 2 -Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, to reinstate him in service granting all consequential service and financial benefits with retrospective effect.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to the present Writ Petition are that the Petitioner was a confirmed Lower Division Clerk (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.D. Clerk') in the office of the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise and Customs, Cuttack. While working as such, a departmental proceeding was initiated against ,the Petitioner under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, 'the Rules, 1965') by the Deputy Collector (P&E;), Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar vide memorandum dated 15.12.1987. The Petitioner was asked to submit his written statement of defence within ten days from the date of receipt of the said memorandum and also to state if he desired to be heard in person. The charges leveled against the Petitioner relate to his remaining frequent absent from office without prior permission and/or without any application for grant of leave and attending office late and leaving office early without any application or permission for the same. The Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence (Annexure -2) on 14.1.1988. Enquiring Officer & Presenting Officer were appointed by the Deputy Collector (P&E;), the disciplinary authority, under his letters (Annexures -3 & 4) both dated 13.1.1988. The enquiry was conducted & the Enquiring Officer submitted the enquiry report after completion of the enquiry. Considering the enquiry report & the case record, the Addl. Collector (P&E;) Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar, vide his order, dated 23.10.1989 (Annexure -7) imposed punishment of removal from service against the Petitioner under Rule 11 (viii) of the Rules, 1965. Against the said order, the Petitioner filed appeal & the Appellate authority vide its Order Dated 28.2.1991 (Annexure -8) held that the Disciplinary Authority had rightly imposed the penalty of removal from service under the relevant rules & declined to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority & the Appellate Authority, the Petitioner filed Original Application No. 127 of 1992 before the Tribunal, which was rejected on 07.04.1998. Hence, this Writ Petition.

(3.) MR . J.K. Mishra, Learned Asst. Solicitor General for Union of India, contended that the Memorandum of charges was served on the delinquent on 17.12.1987 directing him to submit his written statement of defence, if any, and also to state if he desired to be heard in person within ten days of receipt of the said Memorandum. The said period expired on 27.12.1987. The Petitioner neither submitted his defence reply nor asked for extension of time for submission of the same till 14.01.1998. Since it was a major penalty proceeding under Rule 14 of the Rules, the Enquiring Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed by the Disciplinary Authority by Order Dated 13.01.1988. The Petitioner remained absent from office unauthorisedly on the dates mentioned in Article -1 of Annexure -II of the Charge Memo and used to attend office late and leave office early on the dates mentioned in Article -II of Annexure -II of the Charge Memo. Neither the Deputy Office Superintendent nor the Administrative Officer has ever condoned such action of the delinquent. The Deputy Office Superintendent under whom the delinquent was working stated that wherever there are marks for C.L. and E.L. in the attendance register, they have been marked after receiving the leave applications from the Charged Officer, but that does not mean that the leave was sanctioned. Leave applications were not received from the Charged Officer on several occasions. The prosecution witness; the Administrative Officer and the Deputy Office Superintendent pointed out that the delinquent had often remained absent from office unauthorisedly and did not maintain punctuality in attending and leaving office. Those allegations were not refuted by the Charged Officer during the course of hearing nor did he cross -examine the prosecution witnesses. The charge framed against the Charged Officer vide Article -I and II of the charge Memo are proved. The Charged Officer on 28.04.1988, i.e., the date of regular hearing submitted that he was fully satisfied with the proceedings of the enquiry. Under Sub -rule (19) of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965, it is not mandatory that the Presenting Officer should submit his written brief to the Enquiring Officer with a copy to the Charged Officer. The enquiry was conducted by the Enquiring Officer following the due procedure. Non supply of the copy of enquiry report before passing of the impugned order of punishment by the disciplinary authority does not prejudice the delinquent. There has been no denial of natural justice as the records clearly reveal that the Petitioner either was absented from duty without prior permission or did not apply for leave properly as per the Rules. The case of the Petitioner is based on evidence, which leaves no scope for benefit of doubt. As per the provision in vogue, copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the charged officer along with the final decision. The Deputy Collector was the disciplinary authority at the time of issuance of memorandum of charge, but subsequently the post of Deputy Collector was re -designated as Addl. Collector.