WP/23334/2020 of Union of India Vs Adem Prabhakar on 31 December 2020

THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEIVBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDYANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 23334 OF 2020

Between:

Union of lndia, rep. by the Secretary, [Ministry ][of ][Labour ][and ][Employment ][Govt.]of lndia Shram Shakti Bhavan RafiMarg, New Delhi - 110 001.

...PETITIONER

AND

Adem Prabhakar, S/o. Late Shri A Anjaneya Reddy Aged about 67 years,Retd.Dy.Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Rl/o. Subha Shree House No.552(old No.6-3-252 I1 12) Erram lt4anzil, Hyderabad -500082

...RESPONDENT

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be [pleased ]toissue an order or direction more panicularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari callingfor the records pedaining to Order dated: 2511 112019 in OA No.109B of 2013 on thefile of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad andquash the same as arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law.

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in lheaffidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be [pleased ]to suspendoperation of the orders dated: 2511112019 in OA No.'1098 of 2013 [passed ]by theHon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, [pending]disposal of WP.affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be [pleased ]to suspendoperation of the orders dated: 2511112019 in OA No.'1098 of 2013 [passed ]by theHon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, [pending]disposal of WP.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

Counsel for the Respondent :------

The Gourt made the following: ORDER

I

I

i

THE HON'BLE [SRIJUSTICE A'RAJASHEKER ][REDDY]

ANDTHE HONOURABLE [SRIJUSTICE ][K' ][LAKSHMAN]

Writ Petiti [on][ No.2][33][34][ of][ 2020]

ri Jus[ce][ A. ][Ra ash ker][ Redd]

REr

This writ [petition ][is ][filed against the order dated 25 11'2019 passed ][in]O.A.No.20/1098/2013 [by the ][Central Administrative ][Tribunal' ][Hyderabad]Bench, [Hyderabad, ][wherein ][and ][whereby ][the ][Tribunal ][has set ][aside ][the]punishment [imposed ][on the ][respondent ][and ][directed ][the ][petitioner ][to]review and [modify ][the ][punishment ][to ][a ][lesser ][penalty' ][which ][is]commensurate [to ][the ][rapse ][committed ][by ][the ][respondent and ][to ][be on ][par]with others [who were found to err ][in ][the issue under question']

2. Sri Namavarapu [Rajeshwar ][Reddy' Assistant ][Solicitor ][General ][of]lndia, [appearing ][for ][the ][petitioner' ][submits ][that ][as ][serious lapses ][were]committed [by ][the ][respondent being ][a ][superior officer' ][the ][Tribunal ][could]not have [interfered ][with the ][punishment imposed ][by ][the ][petitioner ][vide]order dated [19.03.2012 ][and that ][imposrtion ][of ][resser ][punishment ][wiil]amounttocondonethelapsescommittedbytherespondentwhentheallegations [are serious ln ][nature ][involving procedural irregularities']

3. A reading [of ][the ][order passed ][by ][the Tribunal goes ][to ][show that ][the]Tribunal [has ][rightly considered ][the ][issue ][by ][referring ][to ][the judgments ][of]the Apex [Court ][in ][J' ][Ahmed ][v' ][Union ][of ][lndiai; ][Man ][Singh ][v' ][State of]Haryanaii; [P. Siraiuddin ][v' ][State ][of ][Madrasiii' ][and ][State ][of ][Punjab ][v']Davinder [Pal ][Singh ][Bhullariu' ][The Tribunal in paragraph ][Vll ][of the order]held as [follows;]

"Therefore, to [sum up, ][it ][is ][abundantly ][clear that ][the ][applicant ][was ][not]involved [in ][a ][case ][of ][procurement ][of ][medicines ][to ][enrich ][himself ][He followed]the [procedure as was followed by ][others' ][Respondents failed ][to ][lay down ][a ][firm]policy in [procuring ][medicines' ][They ][did ][so only after ][the ][limited tender process]was completed [by ][the applicant' who has ][candidly ][admitted as to what he ][has]involved [in ][a ][case ][of ][procurement ][of ][medicines ][to ][enrich ][himself ][He followed]the [procedure as was followed by ][others' ][Respondents failed ][to ][lay down ][a ][firm]policy in [procuring ][medicines' ][They ][did ][so only after ][the ][limited tender process]was completed [by ][the applicant' who has ][candidly ][admitted as to what he ][has]

ARR,J&KL,JW.P.No.23334 of 2020

done. CBI did not report that the applicant was dishonest. After traversingthrough the case details, we found it to be more a case of negligence on the partof the applicant and lack of balance in imposing penalties by the respondent formore or less similar lapses by employees involved in the issue. A purchasecommittee comprising doctors, who are aware as to the quality of medicines tobe procured, was involved. Applicant cannot be solely made responsible for thealleged lapses. ln was collective wisdom which prevailed in taking the decisionof [procuring ]medicines. Action of the respondent rs thus not in congruence withmany legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, inregard to various aspects of the issue. However, one should not ignore theaspect that the applicant being a senior officer, should have exercised caution inprocurement by adhering to basic financial rules. Work load does not entail anyliberty to lake wrong decisions. However, the applicant was found nol to bedishonest. He followed what others did and his fellow colleague was let off witha minor penalty".

4. The fact that lesser punishment was imposed on similarly situatedpersons is not seriously disputed and the Tribunal also found that CBI hasnot reported that the respondent was dishonest and he cannot be solelyresponsible for the alleged lapses. The said findings of the Tribunal arenot seriously challenged. The Tribunal has not let-off the respondentwithout any punishment, but only directed to impose lesser punishmentkeeping in view facts and circumstances.

5. ln view of the above, we are of the view that the Tribunal has takenall pains to go into the details of the matter and gave specific findings,which could not be attacked very seriously. ln view of the said findings offact, we are not inclined to re-appreciate the evidence and interfere withfindings of fact rendered by the Tribunal, by exercising power of judicialreview under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia.

6. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of theview that this is not a fit case to interfere and interdict the order passed bythe Tribunal by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia I

1

ARR,J&KL,JW.P.No.23334 of 2020

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

B. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.

AtR 1979 [SC ][1022](2008) 12 scc [331]1970(1) scc [595]izor+) [scc ][(L&S) ][208: ][(2011) ][14 ][scc ][770]

[[770]]SD/.K.ONESIMASSISTANT [REGIST]//TRUE COPY//SECTIONFFICERASSISTANT [REGIST]//TRUE COPY//SECTIONFFICER

To,1. One [CC ][to Sri. Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao' Assistant Solicitor General ][[OPUC]]2. Two C.D. [CoPies]Prk\J-"

HIGH COURT

DATED:3111212020

ORDERWP.No.23334 [o12020]

Dismissing [the ][WP.]without costs.

?-\),>o

1{TA r4r)[t](23 [FEB ][2021]7:c_"1*r!