UNION OF INDIA Vs. VISHNU LAL NAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition by the Union of India and others is directed against the order dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 212/1996 whereby the Tribunal allowed the application submitted by respondent No. 1 Vishnu Lal Nai and while maintaining the findings of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority on the charges against him, modified the punishment awarded to him.

(2.) THE facts leasing to the present petition could be summarised thus: Respondent No. 1 Vishnu Lal Nai was working as Postman at the Sub-Post Office, Devgarh when he was served with a charge-sheet on 21.10.1994 with the allegations that while working as postman at Sub-Post Office, Devgarh on 17.8.1994 at about 17.50 hours in the evening, he entered the office of Inspector, Post Office, Devgarh and misbehaved with the Inspector, Shri Pratap Thakur by hurling abuses at him and threw down two chairs of the office which fell near the door. This act of the respondent was of gross indiscipline and of indecency and in the breach of dignity required to be maintained with the higher officials. THE act of delinquent was stated to be wholly unbecoming of a government employee and in violation of Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Conduct Rules. A regular enquiry was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. THE enquiry officer submitted his report on 27.3.1995, copy of the same was served upon the delinquent who submitted his representation also on 15.4.1995. THE disciplinary authority considered the matter in sufficient detail and dealt with the objections of the delinquent about denial of opportunity of hearing also and found that the enquiry had been conducted squarely in conformity with the requirements of law and found that the charge against the delinquent was amply established by evidence on record. After agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority observed that the act of delinquent and his behaviour with his higher officer was not only indecent but was an obnoxious conduct in which all the principles of discipline have been brushed aside and the employee has lost his right to remain in government service. THEreafter, the disciplinary authority observed that the past record of the employee was also indicative that the employee had been acting in breach of the discipline from time to time but department every time afforded him with opportunity to correct himself but he did not come true and the previous clemency has resulted in boosting of his attitude and he did not refrain from repeating the act. According to the disciplinary authority, if the employee would be forgiven this time, the same would be a serious mistake which might send wrong signals to other employees for indulging in discipline and the delinquent would become unruly. THErefore, the disciplinary authority formed the opinion that tolerating such employee would not be in the interest of the department and it was necessary that department gets rid of such employee and hence, in this direction, removal is the only punishment available, however his family should not suffer on account of his misdeeds, and therefore, passed the passed the order of punishment of compulsory retirement on 28.4.1995.

(3.) THE aforesaid order dated 11.12.2000 was challenged by respondent No. 1 Vishnu Lal, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7193/2001 arising out of SLP (C) No. 9530/2001. THE Hon'ble Supreme Court found that this Court appeared to have construed the order of the Tribunal against the appellant (employee), without even noticing him, thereby grossly prejudicing his interest. In that view of the matter, the order dated 11.12.2000 was set aside and the Hon'ble Apex Court directed that the High Court may reconsider the matter in accordance with law. THE order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads thus:- "Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India. THE High Court appears to have construed the order of the Tribunal against the appellant, without even noticing him, thereby grossly prejudicing the interest of the appellant. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct that the High Court may reconsider the matter in accordance with law. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly."