Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 832 (AP)

M. Ramachander Rao v. Member (Finance)

2012-09-10

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, G.ROHINI

body2012
Judgment : G. Rohini, J. The writ petitioner while working as Accounts Officer in the office of Telecom District Engineer, Ongole was imposed the penalty of withholding increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 27.01.1997. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The appellate authority taking a lenient view reduced the duration of the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority from two years to one year by order dated 30.06.1999. Challenging the said order, the writ petitioner filed O.A.No.980 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench contending inter alia that the appellate authority committed a grave error in disposing of the appeal without giving him an opportunity of hearing as required under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Rules'). It was also contended that the appellate authority had disposed of the appeal without application of mind to the relevant factors and moreover he had earlier dismissed his appeal against the adverse entries made in the service record which itself shows that his appeal was not decided with open mind and therefore the impugned orders passed by both the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be sustained. The Tribunal below had rejected all his contentions and accordingly dismissed the O.A. by order dated 22.06.2001. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 22.06.2001 in O.A.No.980 of 2000 and to quash the same and further to set aside the orders dated 30.06.1999 and 27.01.1997 passed by the respondents 1 and 2 respectively. It is contended by Sri K.V.Manikya Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even in the case of a minor penalty, conducting an enquiry is mandatory where the charges are denied by the delinquent. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel has relied upon O.K.Bhardwaj v. Union of India and others ( 2001 (9) SCC 180 ). It is also contended by the learned counsel that all the charges framed against the petitioner were vague and had an enquiry been held, the petitioner would have established that all the charges are without any basis and untenable. We have also heard Smt.S.Nanda and Sri B.Narsimha Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is also contended by the learned counsel that all the charges framed against the petitioner were vague and had an enquiry been held, the petitioner would have established that all the charges are without any basis and untenable. We have also heard Smt.S.Nanda and Sri B.Narsimha Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 of the Rules, specified the minor penalties and admittedly the penalty of reduction of increment for two years is one of the minor penalties provided therein. Rule 16 of the Rules which provides the procedure for imposing minor penalties reads as under: “16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties:- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, no order imposing on a Government any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 shall be made except after- (a) informing the Government Servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; (b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary; (c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government Servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; (d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (e) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary. (1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government Servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule, to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increment is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government Servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government Servant any such penalty. (2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include- (i) a copy of the intimation to the Government Servant of the proposal to take action against him; (ii) a copy of the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior delivered to him; (iii) his representation, if any; (iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry; (v) the advice of the Commission, if any; (vi) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (vii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor." As per Rule 16 (1), the Government servant has to be informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to take action and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation against the proposal. After receiving such representation an enquiry as provided in Rule 14 shall be held, if such enquiry is necessary in the opinion of the disciplinary authority. It is no doubt true that Rule 16 (1A) mandates an enquiry, where after considering the representation made in response to the charge sheet in a case it is proposed to withhold increments of pay and such withholding is likely to effect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold of pay with cumulative effect for any period, before making such an order imposing the penalty. However, admittedly the penalty of withholding increment imposed on the petitioner was without cumulative effect. Moreover, though the disciplinary authority directed to withhold the increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect that was reduced to one year by the appellate authority. Nothing is placed before this Court to show that the petitioner either in his explanation to the charge sheet or in his Memorandum of appeal, had pleaded that the penalty would affect adversely the amount of pension payable to him. For the aforesaid reasons, in our considered opinion the penalty imposed is not vitiated merely on the ground that no enquiry was held. Having regard to the language of Rule 16 (1) (b) it appears to us that holding of enquiry is necessary only where the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such enquiry is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Having regard to the language of Rule 16 (1) (b) it appears to us that holding of enquiry is necessary only where the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such enquiry is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. As held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel ( 1985 (3) SCC 398 ), the Court cannot expand the procedure laid down by the statute to include rules of natural justice contrary to the intention of the legislature. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners. According to us, the decision of the Supreme Court in O.K.Bhardwaj's case (1 supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts and has no relevance to the case on hand in view of the specific language of Rule 16 (1) (b) of the Rules. We are satisfied that the disciplinary authority had imposed the penalty in question on proper appreciation of the material available on record and the appellate authority had reduced the said penalty taking a lenient view. Therefore, the Tribunal below was justified in dismissing the O.A. We do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.