O.P. Vijaya Vargiya S/o G.L.Vijaya Vargiya, V. Union of India Rep by its Chief Executive,

WP/2160/2014

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by a petitioner who challenged the disciplinary actions taken against him during his service at the Heavy Water Plant, Manuguru. The petitioner was accused of several misconducts, including not reporting to his new duty station immediately after transfer, using political influence against his transfer, promoting an insurance agency, and misusing medical facilities for his father. The disciplinary authority found some charges proved, leading to a reduction in rank, which was later modified to a lesser penalty by the appellate authority. The Central Administrative Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the current writ petition. The High Court dismissed the petition, agreeing with the lower authorities' findings and penalties.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 684752 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
• Result in Favour of: Respondent
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Departmental Enquiry; Disciplinary Authority; False information; Medical facilities; Penalty order; Writ of Certiorari; Political Influence
• Section: 6(18)(106)

Judgement Text

"THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS WRIT PETITION No.2160 OF 2014 ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu) This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned penalty Order No.HWB/IRS/6(18)(106)/116, dated 02.02.2010, issued by the Disciplinary Authority, Order No.11/6(2)/2010-1& M(HWB)/6502, dated 13.07.2010, issued by the Appellate Authority, and order, dated 07.10.2013, in O.A.No.85 of 2011 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary, and also in clear violation of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, “the Rules”). 2. The petitioner, while functioning as Tradesman/G in Heavy Water Plant, Kota, was transferred to Heavy Water Plant, Manuguru in public interest and was relieved from his duties at Heavy Water Plant, Kota on the forenoon of 14.05.2007 with a direction to report at Manuguru. While so, a charge memo was issued by the disciplinary authority to the effect that firstly, he did not join duty immediately at Manuguru after availing the normal joining time and remained absent from duty unauthorisedly and finally, after a lapse of nearly eight months from the date of his relieving at the old station, joined at the new station; that secondly, he represented against the transfer by bringing political influence; that thirdly, he canvassed in support of L.I.C. agency work managed by his wife and also engaged indirectly in promoting the L.I.C. agency business and that fourthly, he availed medical facilities to his father by producing false information stating that his father was dependent on him during the period from the year 1986 to 14.05.2007. In pursuance of that charge memo, regular departmental enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority wherein 1st, 2nd and 4th charges were proved and 3rd charge was unproved. A penalty of reduction in rank was imposed vide order, dated 02.02.2010. Against that order, an appeal has been preferred before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, by its order, dated 13.07.2010, modified the same by imposing lesser penalty. Challenging the same, petitioner filed O.A.No.85 of 2011 before the Tribunal and the same was dismissed confirming the order of the appellate authority. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant contended that the petitioner has taken the health card issued under Central Government Health Service Scheme for his father, but that facility has not been availed at any point of time; that the petitioner was not aware of the business of his father and that only for one year, the father of the petitioner has filed the Income Tax Returns and so, reduction in rank is disproportionate to the proved misconduct and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. The order passed by the disciplinary authority was modified by the appellate authority and the Tribunal confirmed the findings recorded by the appellate authority. By virtue of the order issued by the disciplinary authority, penalty was imposed by reducing the post of Technician/G in the pay band of Rs.9300 – 34800 + Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- to that of Technician/F with pay of Rs.11540/- in the pay band of Rs.9300 – 34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- with immediate effect. The appellate authority modified the said order and imposed lesser penalty by reducing the pay by two stages in pay band of Rs.9300 – 34800 + Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- for a period of two years. It is not a case where the departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Rules applicable to the service conditions of petitioner. No objections with regard to conducting of enquiry and giving the reasonable opportunity during the course of enquiry were raised in the petition filed by the petitioner. It is not stated in the writ petition that none of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to law. Therefore, the only question remains to be answered is whether the penalty imposed by the appellate authority is disproportionate to the proved misconduct or not. 5. Unless the findings are perverse or contrary to law, normally, this Court would not interfere with the departmental proceedings. The first charge levelled against the petitioner is that he did not join duty at the place where he was posted. The second charge was that he did not join the duty after availing the normal time and represented against the transfer by bringing political influence in the matter of his transfer. The third charge was that he canvassed in support of L.I.C. Agency work and lastly, he availed the medical facilities to his father by producing false information stating that his father was a dependent on him during the period from 1986 to 14.05.2007. Charge Nos.1, 2 and 4 were proved in the departmental enquiry. As seen from the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner admitted that he availed the medical facility under the Central Government Health Service Scheme to his father on 25.11.2005. It is also an admitted fact that his father filed Income Tax Returns for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 showing his gross amount as Rs.1,42,401/- and Rs.1,81,372/- respectively. So, it is clear that the petitioner claimed false medical bills and the information given by him is found to be false. Therefore, the punishment imposed by the appellate authority is not shown to be disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Hence, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU _______________ JUSTICE ANIS Date: 31.01.2014 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS WRIT PETITION No.2160 OF 2014 DATE: 31.01.2014 AMD "