Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2341 (MAD)

K. Saravanan v. Union of India

2025-04-28

M.S.RAMESH, N.SENTHILKUMAR

body2025
ORDER : M.S.RAMESH, J. Both these Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.282 of 2013 dated 26.07.2019, by the employee, as well as the Management. Since the order impugned is common in both the Writ Petitions, they are disposed of through a common order. 2. Through a charge memorandum dated 31.12.2017, the employee, who was then employed as an Upper Division Clerk at the ALWC's Office, was charged with seven articles of charges. In the inquiry report dated 09.06.2011, while Charge Nos.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 were held as “proved”, Charge Nos.2 and 5 were recorded as “not proved”. The employee has submitted his objections to the inquiry report on 16.07.2011. The Disciplinary Authority, on considering such objections, partially accepted the same and held that, except Charge Nos.1 and 3, all other charges before the Inquiry Officer were not established. By holding so, the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on the employee on 19.12.2011. The appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority was rejected on 09.10.2012. Both these orders dated 19.12.2011 and 09.10.2012 were put under challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in O.A.No.282 of 2013. The Tribunal, by its order dated 26.07.2019, had recorded that since there were no records to show that the applicant was a person of doubtful integrity and also since the punishment imposed on him was shockingly disproportionate to the two proven charges and vindictive in nature, had set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement and directed the Disciplinary Authority to impose lesser penalty within a stipulated time. 3. The learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Management submitted that the ordinance factor, in which the employee was working, is directly linked to national safety and that the charges against him were serious in nature. The charge against the employee that he had brought a personal floppy inside the factory, without any authorization and had taken photocopies of official communications, requires to be seriously dealt with and therefore, the punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be disproportionate to the levelled charges. 4. On the side of the employee, the learned counsel submitted that there is nothing on record in the inquiry report to prove that the possession of the personal floppy or the photocopies of the official communication were adversely used against the factory. 4. On the side of the employee, the learned counsel submitted that there is nothing on record in the inquiry report to prove that the possession of the personal floppy or the photocopies of the official communication were adversely used against the factory. According to him, even if these charges are taken as correct on its face value, the punishment of compulsory retirement is grossly disproportionate and therefore, the maximum punishment of compulsory retirement was unwarranted. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side. 6. Charge No.1 against the employee was that he, while working in ALWC's office, had committed the offence of gross misconduct by bringing a personal floppy inside the factory without any authorization. Charge No.3 against him was that he had taken photocopies of official communications unauthorizedly and possessed the same in his personal capacity, which is in viiolation of Rule 11 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The remaining five charges against him in the charge memo dated 31.12.2017 were held as not established by the Disciplinary Authority, when the penalty order dated 19.12.2011 was passed. Before the Tribunal, the employee had challenged the penalty of compulsory retirement, predominantly on the ground that both the charges, which were held against him, were not so serious, which warrants maximum penalty. 7. The Tribunal had also accepted the submissions and while holding that the inquiry was conducted in a free and fair manner, without causing any prejudice, took into its consideration that there was nothing to question the employee's integrity and the punishment of compulsory retirement was shockingly disproportionate and vindictive. 8. The incidental issue that may arise for consideration in these Writ Petitions is, as to whether the Tribunal would be justified in interfering with the punishment? It would be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1996 SC 484 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “..... A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appeallate authority, being fact- finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appeallate authority, being fact- finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” 9. Similarly in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Giriraj Sharma reported in AIR 1994 SC 215 , when the charge against the Government servant was for over-staying of the leave period, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the punishment of dismissal to be harsh and disproportionate and ordered for reinstatement with all benefits, together with liberty to the authorities to visit minor punishment. 10. In a case for unauthorized absence for seven days resulting in a punishment of dismissal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the the case of Syed Zaheer Hussain Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1999) 9 SCC 86, had recorded the disproportionateness of the punishment to the levelled charges and imposed a lesser punishment. 11. In the light of these decisions, it is clear that the Tribunal or the High Court will be well within its powers to adjudicate on the proportionateness of the punishment to the charges and recommend for a lesser punishment. 12. As seen above, Charge No.1 relates to the employee possessing a personal floppy inside a factory without any authorization. Neither the charge memo nor the inquiry report refers to any regulation or standing instructions of the ordinance factory, which prescribes such possession of a floppy inside the factory premises. It is not the case of the Management also that the employee had utilized this floppy for downloading any unauthorized information. Neither the charge memo nor the inquiry report refers to any regulation or standing instructions of the ordinance factory, which prescribes such possession of a floppy inside the factory premises. It is not the case of the Management also that the employee had utilized this floppy for downloading any unauthorized information. Likewise Charge No.3, which was also held to be proved, was an allegation that the employee had taken photocopies of the official communications unauthorizedly and kept it in his personal custody which is an violation of Rule 11 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules. Admittedly, it is not the case of the employer that such official communications were shared with any other persons or the media. As a matter of fact, Charge No.7 against the employee was that he had committed the offence of gross misconduct and communicated unauthorized information directly to other Government servants or other persons/press, which charge was held as not established by the Disciplinary Authority himself. Even assuming that the photocopies were in the personal possession of the employee, no consequential prejudice was caused to the Management, since he had not shared such official communications with any third person. In this view of the matter, both the charges can only be held to be minor in nature, which may not warrant the maximum penalty of compulsory retirement. 13. The Tribunal had rightly appreciated the aforesaid aspect and had recommended for imposition of a minor penalty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also, in some of its decisions which have been extracted above, interfered with the major punishments and reduced the same by imposing a minor penalty. Thus, no interference is required to the impugned order of the Tribunal. Likewise, since the Disciplinary Authority has rightly held two of the charges as proved, the claim of the employee to totally absolve him from the proven charges does not deserve consideration. 14. In the result, both the Writ Petitions stand dismissed and the order of the Tribunal dated 26.07.2019, passed in O.A.No.282 of 2013, is upheld. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to pass orders, reinstating the petitioner into service, by imposing a minor penalty, in the light of the observations and findings in the orders passed by this Court, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.