N VIDYANATH vs M/o Defence on 28 December 2018

**ORAL ORDER**

**(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy, Chairman)**

The applicant was appointed as Stenographer III in the Naval Dockyard in 1981. He earned two promotions and became Assistant Manager (Personnel). A charge memo was served upon

A handwritten signature, possibly 'N.S.' or similar, written in dark ink at the bottom right of the page.

OA 020/1174/2012The logo of the Central Administrative Tribunal, featuring a circular emblem with a sunburst in the center, surrounded by the text 'Central Administrative Tribunal' and 'भारत गणराज्य' (Republic of India) in Devanagari script.

him on 25.03.2004 wherein five articles of charge were framed. The gist of the allegation was, that despite specific instructions not to engage any casual labourers, the applicant, in collusion with one Assistant Manager Mr.Dharm Das, kept on engaging persons, leading to several administrative and financial complications. The other related allegations were also made. The applicant submitted his reply denying the charges. The Disciplinary Authority appointed the Inquiry Officer. After conducting a detailed inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 31.01.2007 holding that Articles I, II and V of the charge memo are proved and others as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report and furnished a copy thereof to the applicant. On consideration of the remarks offered by the applicant on the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 24.05.2012 imposing punishment of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by one stage for a period three years. The same is challenged in this OA.

2. The applicant contends that he engaged the casual labourers only on being instructed by his superior and despite that, the charges were held proved against him. He contends that the lapse in appointment of casual labourers was found against his superior and there is no basis for holding him also guilty of the same misconduct.

3. The respondents filed counter opposing the OA. They state that the General Manager (P&A) clearly informed the applicant and

A handwritten signature or mark, possibly initials, located at the bottom right of the page.

OA 020/1174/2012The logo of the Central Administrative Tribunal, featuring a circular emblem with a sunburst design in the center and the text 'Central Administrative Tribunal' around the perimeter.

the Manager (P&A) not to engage casual labourers, duly indicating the existence of ban and other restrictions, and despite that, the applicant indulged in engagement of casual labourers. It is stated that on account of the acts of indiscipline on the part of the applicant, serious unrest has taken place in the organization. According to the respondents, the punishment is proportionate to gravity of the charges, that were held proved.

4. We heard Mrs. Anita Swain, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. K. Rajitha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.

5. The applicant was issued charge memo dated 25.03.2004 wherein five articles of charge are contained. The charges leveled against the applicant read as under:

"

Article-I

That the said Shri N.Vidyanath, PS ND(V) while functioning as AM (Per), Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam during the period from 06 Apr 2001 to 24 Feb 2002 in association with Shri Dharma Das, SAO, the then M(Per), ND(V) did willfully disobey the order of his Superior Officer viz., Commodore SK Dutt (00992-Fj), the then GM(P&A) and Commander Ashvini Kumar (01583-Y), the then Officer-in-Charge (Personnel) both of Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam by engaging the 23 remaining labourers during Feb 2002, despite categorical direction from the aforesaid GM(P&A) on 04 Feb 2002 not to engage the remaining 23 Labourers out of 350 labourers sanction accorded by ASD(V) during the months of Jan and Feb 2002.

2. Shri N.Vidyanath, PS by the aforesaid act exhibited lack of devotion to duty and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.

A handwritten signature in dark ink, appearing to be 'N.S.' or similar initials.

OA 020/1174/2012The seal of the Central Administrative Tribunal, featuring a circular emblem with a sunburst in the center, surrounded by the text 'Central Administrative Tribunal' and 'भारत गणराज्य' (Republic of India) at the bottom.

Article-II

That the said Shri N Vidyanath, PS ND(V) while functioning as AM (Per), Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam during the period from 06 Apr 2001 to 24 Feb 2002 in association with Shri Dharma Das, SAO, the then M(Per), ND(V) engaged 73 daily wage labourers to perform the duties as Welders, a Group "C" post during Feb 2002 against the sanctions issued by ASD(V) for engaging daily wage labourer despite complete ban on engaging casual workers for performing duties of Group "C" post as per the provision contained in Min. of Defence OM 4(3)/89/D(Civ II) dated 31 Jan 91.

2. Shri N.Vidyanath, PS by the aforesaid act exhibited lack of devotion to duty and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(ii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article-III

That the said Shri N.Vidyanath, PS, ND(V) while functioning as AM (Per), Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam during the period from 06 Apr 2001 to 24 Feb 2002 suppressed the material facts about engagement of 335 Daily wage labourers including 08 Sportsmen as on 09 Feb 02 while submitting the file to the Officer-in-Charge (Personnel), ND(V) through M(Per).

2. Shri N.Vidyanath, PS by the aforesaid act exhibited lack of devotion to duty and thereby violated Rule 3(1) (i) and (ii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article-IV

That the said Shri N.Vidyanath, PS while functioning as AM (Per), ND(V) during Feb 2002 failed to examine the eligibility criteria for engagement of DWLs as per the guidelines but engaged the daily wage labourers by signing the notes detailing them to various sections as prepared by the staff in a casual manner without verifying the guidelines.

2. Shri N.Vidyanath, PS by the aforesaid acts exhibited lack of devotion to duty and thereby violated Rule 3(1) (iii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article-V

That the said Shri N.Vidyanath, PS ND(V) while functioning as AM (Per), Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam during the period from 06 Apr 2001 to

A handwritten signature in dark ink, appearing to be a stylized script.

OA 020/1174/2012The logo of the Central Administrative Tribunal is a circular emblem. It features a central sunburst design with multiple rays. The words "Central Administrative Tribunal" are written in a circular path around the sunburst. Below the sunburst, there is a smaller circular seal with the word "Tribunal" visible.

24 Feb 2002 did fail to bring to the notice of his superior officers about non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria of 54 Daily Wage Labourers for granting ty. Status to them.

2. Shri N.Vidyanath by the aforesaid act exhibited lack of devotion to duty and thereby violated Rule 3(1) (ii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.

6. The applicant submitted his explanation and not satisfied with it, the Disciplinary Authority appointed the Inquiry Officer. In his report, the Inquiry Officer held the Articles I, II and V as proved and the Articles III and IV of the charge as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report.

7. It appears that earlier the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 21.12.2011 against the applicant imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for five years and that the applicant challenged the same in OA 117/2012. The present impugned order was passed during the pendency of the said OA on noticing that the applicant has only 3 years left over service.

8. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the minor penalty against the applicant. The occasion for the court to interfere with the penalty would arise in case it is established that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are perverse or are based upon no evidence, or if the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is totally disproportionate to the charges held proved against the employee.

9. We have carefully gone through the report of the Inquiry Officer. He furnished cogent reasons before he held the charges I,

A handwritten signature in dark ink, appearing to be in a cursive script.

OA 020/1174/2012 

II and V as proved. For instance, the applicant did not dispute that in February 2002 there was a ban on engagement of casual labourers to perform regular duties. Naturally, the charge was held proved. The implication of engagement of casual labourers in such a large number is not difficult to assess. Similar instances of appointment of casual labourers, despite instructions to the contrary, were held proved. The learned counsel for the applicant is not able to demonstrate or point out that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are not based on no evidence. As a matter of fact, most of the evidence is in the form of record itself.

10. Coming to the nature of punishment imposed against the applicant, we do not find it to be disproportionate in any manner. Least of the punishments was imposed against the applicant. We do not find any merit in the OA.

11. The OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

प्रमाणित प्रति CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

केस संख्या CASE NUMBER.....OA 1174/2012 निर्णय का तारीख DATE OF JUDGMENT.....28-12-2018 प्रति तैयार किया गया दिनांक COPY MADE READY ON.....7-1-2019

Nirmal 7/1/19 सहायक अधिकारी / सहायक अधिकारी Section Officer / Court Officer केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अपीलकर्तृष Central Administrative Tribunal हैदराबाद न्यायपीठ/Hyderabad Bench