M.S.Narayanan v. The Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.08.2008CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRAANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNANW.P.NO. 34184 OF 2003M.S.Narayanan ...PetitionerVs.1.The Central Administrative Tribunal ( Madras Bench )rep. by its Registrar High Court Buildings, Chennai 600104.2. Union of India rep.by the Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002.3. The Principal Accountant General ( A& E) Office of the principal Accountant General, Chennai 600 018. ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of Certorarified mandamus calling forthe entire records in O.A.No.59 of 1996 dated 7.8.2003 on the file ofthe first respondent herein and quash the same and direct the thirdrespondent to sanction all consequential service benefits includingthe payment of arrears of pay allowances to the petitioner.For Petitioners : Mr.S.SadasharamFor Respondents No.2 & 3: Mr T.Ravikumar ACGSC-----O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by K.KANNAN,J) Heard Mr.S.Sadasharam, learned counsel for the petitionerand Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Additional Central Government StandingCounsel for respondents 2 and 3. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Summary of facts:2. The writ petitioner was the applicant before the CentralAdministrative Tribunal in O.A.No.59 of 1996 challenging the orderpassed by the second respondent viz. the Deputy Comptroller andAuditor General of India dated 24.3.1995.By the impugned order, the order of the disciplinaryauthority had been confirmed. The punishment meted out to thepetitioner was reduction of pay by three stages with effect from thedate of passing of the order. It was further ordered that incrementsof pay would not be earned during the period of reduction and that onthe expiry of the said period, the reduction would have the effect ofpostponing his future increments of pay. Since the enquiry yielded toa finding of misconduct, the period of suspension from 14.6.1991 to1.5.1994 was not to be treated as duty for any purpose. The pastservices, before suspension would not further be forfeited.Enumeration of alleged misconduct by charges:3. The order was pursuant to the charge memo issued on20.8.1991. During the time when the petitioner was working asAssistant Accounts Officer, the charge memo listed out 11 chargeswhich reads as follows:Charge (1):That the said Shri M.S.Narayaan while functioning asAssistant Accounts officer held meetings within the office premiseswithout securing specific,prior written permission of the PrincipaAccountant General on 13.2.91, 05.03.91, 10.4.91, 02.05.91, 14.05.91,15.05.91, 16.05.91 and 17.05.91 in violation of Rule 3(1)(iii) andRule 7(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules.Charge (2):That the aid Shri M.S.Narayanan in the meeting held by hisunauthorisedly within the office premises on 13.02.91 between 1.45p.m. and 2.20 p.m. instigated the staff t go on "Work to Rule"thereby infriging Rule 7(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rule.Charge (3): That the said Shri M.S.Narayanan in a meeting held by himunauthorisedly within the office premises on 14.5.91 between1.50 p.m.and 2.30 p.m. issued a call to the Sections in the Accounts Group notto do the pasting of index slips on the records to be sent to CurrentRecord Section. He has tried to prevent the staff from doing theirduties, thereby infringingRule 3(1)(ii),Rule 3(1)(iii) and Rule 7(ii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Charge (4):That the said Shri M.S.Narayanan held a metting withint heoffice building during office hours on 13.06.91 between 12 noon and12.40 p.m. without securing specific prior, written permission of theprincipal Accountant general, thereby vilating Rule 3(1)(ii), Rue 3(1)(iii) and Rule 7(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules.Charge (5): That the said shri M.S.Narayanan, has through a letter addressedto the Accounts Officer under his signature on 1306.92 incited theAccounts Officers to protest against Administration. In the sameletter he has also urged them not to discharge duties of reportingattendance assigned to them by Administration. Shri M.S.Narayanan, bythe aforesaid acts has thereby infringed Rule 3(1)(iii) and Rule 7(ii) of CCS Conduct Rules.Charge (6):That the said Shri M.S.narayanan has through a letterNO.AEA/25 dated10.06.91, under his signature to Shri C.V.Raman,President of the Unrecognisd Accounts Officer's Association enclosingtherewith a letter dated 13.06.91 addressed by him to all AccountsOfficers and a copy of a pamphlet entitled "Thucklal Dharbar" issuedby the Executive Committee of the so call Accounts Employee'sAssociation instigated the Accounts Officers to join names infightingthe Administration thereby infringing Ruel 3(1)(iii) and Rule7(ii) of CCS Conduct Rules.Charge (7):That the said Shri M.S.Narayanan had not obeyed the writtenorder of the Deputy Accountant General (Administration) to hand overthe keys of Almiraha kept in D.C.XI Section of which he was inchargethereby infringing Rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS Conduct Rules.Charge (8):That the said Shri M.S.Narayanan had kept materials otherthan those required in connnection with official work in Almirah keptin D.C.XI Section of which he was in charge thereby violating Ruel 3(1)(iii) of CCS Conduct Rules.Charge (9):That the said Shri M.S.Narayanan has instigated the staffagainst the Administration by misrepresenting to the effect thatspecial casual leave had not been sanctioned thereby infringing Rule3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules.Charge(10):That the said Shri M.S.Narayanan has in his capacity as theself-styled President of the so-called Accounts Employee's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Association caused to distribute pamplets on 04.09.91, 05.04.91 and12.4.91 in the name of Executive Committee, Accounts Employee'sAssociation, containing offensive and objectionable language againstthe Madras Civil Audit and Accounts Association (recognised). He alsocaused a notice Board containing offensive language against MadrasCivil Audit & Accounts Association to be displayed in the foyer ofthe ground floor on 04.02.91 without permission thereby infringingRule 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules.Charge (11): That the said Shri M.S.Narayanan has in his capacity as theself-style President of the so-called Accounts Employee's Associationcaused to distribute a letter on 29.5.91 in the name of ExecutiveCommittee, Accounts Employee's Association directing a section of theSection Officers/Assistant Accounts Officers and Supervisors not tocomply with the directions issued by the Administration in CircularNo.Con.Cell/CR/91-92/28 dated 16.05.91, thereby infringing Rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules. Dispositions below: 4, The enquiry officer found charges Nos.,1, portions ofrespective of charges 2,7 and 8 as not proved and found that theremaining charges as having been established. The Disciplinaryauthority confirmed the findings and imposed the punishment as statedabove. The Petitioner challenged the same before the CentralAdministrative Tribunal in O.A.No.59 OF 1996 which met with nosuccess. Hence the above writ petition.Contention of petitioner:5. The petitioner assails the findings of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal as well as the findings of the enquiryofficer and the disciplinary authority on the ground that the chargesthemselves were frivolous and fabricated. The common thread thatruns across all the charges is, as the President of AccountsEmployees Association, he had used his official position and he hadindulged in the activities of the Union on some occasions beyond theoffice lunch hours and on some occasions indulged in activities thatdisrupted the proper functioning of the administration. Thecontention of the petitioner was that the charges were trumpedagainst him with an intention to curtail his union activities andprevent him from doing the duties. According to him the charges werenot serious at all to inflict on him the punishment that had hugefinancial implications of personal loss running nearly Rs.5 lakhsand the amount of pension that he is now drawing aftersuperannuation. It was the further contention that the appellateauthority had really reaffirmed the finding of the guilt by thedisciplinary authority and had not entered into the merits of thecontentions raised by him before the appellate authority. The CentralAdministrative Tribunal has also not considered the contentions madeby him. Before us, the petitioner emphasized that apart from the fact https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that he had been associated with the activities of the Union as thePresident, he had done no wrong and he was being unduly inflicted amajor penalty.6. He would also contend that penalty of reduction by threestages and simultaneously directing that he shall not earn incrementduring the penalty would amount to double penalty and it is notenvisaged under Rule 11(5) of CCS (CCA) Rules. The punishment metedout itself according to him is grossly disproportionate that wouldshock the conscience of the Court, by virtue of the fact that fortrifle of misconduct that could be attributed to him has resulted ininfliction of a major penalty. According to him, the type ofmisconduct that could attract imposition of major penalty has beenillustrated by giving out examples which have a bearing ofinvolvement of a delinquent in moral turpitude and failure tomaintain integrity. In particular, he would refer to the departmentalletter giving the guidelines about the nature of disciplinary actionand quantum of punishment that would be commensurate with thegravity of offence committed. 7. As set out the annexure to the letter by the D.G.,P.&T ., letter No. 6/19/72-Disc.I, dated 29th November, 1972. reads asfollows:"Types of cases which may merit action for imposing one ofthe major penalties:1. Cases in which there is a reasonable ground to believe that apenal offence has been committed by a Government servant by theevidence forthcoming is not sufficient for prosecution in a Court oflaw eg:- a. Possession of disproportionate assets; b. Obtaining or attempting to obtain illegal gratification; c. Misappropriation of Government property, money or stores;d. Obtaining or attempting to obtain any valuable thing orpecuniary advantage without consideration or for a considerationwhich is not a adequate.2. Falsification of Government records.3. Gross irregularity or negligence in the discharge of officialduties with a dishonest motive.4. Misuse of official position or power for personal gain.5. Disclosure of secret or confidential information even thoughit does not fall strictly within the scope of the Official SecretsAct.6. False claims on the Government- like T.A. claims,reimbursement claims, etc."Proportionality of punishment to 'gravity of misconduct"7. On going through the charges that have been framed, itwould be evident that the burden of the song is that he was involvedin the activities of Accounts Employees Union and had caused https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ obstruction to the administration. On going through the charges, itcould be seen that they are replication in a diverse form of the sameallegation of misconduct viz. he, as a President of the Union, hadbeen distributing pamphlets beyond the working hours and that thepamphlets contained abusive of language against the recognised Unionand that some letters were distributed exhorting a section ofAccounts Officers not to comply with the directions of theadministration etc., None of the charges have anything to do with themisconduct of any serious nature. They could be seen to be trivial bythe fact that apart from the distribution of some pamphlets orletters, there was nothing particularly serious to doubt hisintegrity or commission of any act which could termed to be unworthyof a Government Servant. Some other charges which make seriousimputations, such as holding of meeting in the office premiseswithout securing proper permission (Charge No.1) or refusal to handover the keys of Almirah kept in D.C,.XI section (Charge No.7) orretention of materials not connected with the official work (ChargeNo.8) have all been found to be not established. The Splitting up ofseveral charges themselves appear to be an exercise in syntacticaljugglery and they appear to have been made to seem as very seriousmisconduct as having been committed. We do not mean to upset thefinding of the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority that hasaffirmed the findings or the Tribunal which has confirmed the findingof the disciplinary authority. They are all essentially matters ofappreciation of evidence and we are not persuaded to take anydifferent view from the authorities below. It is too well laid downthat the Court shall not interfere with the finding of thedepartmental authorities and the Courts will not supplant theirjudgments by what should be appropriate punishment. Theadministrative authorities are the best Judges in the matter ofpunishment for the charges. Times without number it has been heldthat the Courts sitting in judicial review against the quantum ofpunishment imposed, any disciplinary proceedings would not substituteits own conclusion. The exception that stand out are when the Courtthat intends to interfere with the quantum of punishment finds thatthe punishment is shockingly disproportionate and it would be mostinequitable to allow the same punishment to continue. Law re-emphasised, in the factual backdrop:9. This position of law was emphasised in the decision inState of Gujarat Vs. Anand Acharyar @ Bharat Kumar Sadan JT 2007(4)SC 324 : 2007(3) SCALE 415, making references to earlier decisions ofthe Supreme Court, Bhagat Ram Vs. State of H.P.:AIR 1983 SC 454 :(1983) 2 SCC 442(Ranjit Thakur Vs.Union of India AIR 1987 SC 2386: JT1987(4) SC 93: (1987) 2 scale 773 ; UP Road Transport Corporation &another Vs. Makesh Kumar Mishra AIR 2000 SC 1151:(2000) 3 SCC 450:(2000) 2 SCALE 367; laying down the proposition that in the event ofCourt substituting the punishment, there shall be cogent reasons forthe same. Indeed, there are enough reasons for finding the punishmentto be capricious. All the charges relate to the fact that during his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ tenure as President of the Accounts officers Association, he hadurged his other employees to join for protest against theadministration of what he considered to be undemocratic or againstthe interest of employees. There is no serious charge against himquestioning his moral turpitude or integrity of persons. Theillustrations of the nature of the disciplinary action and thequantum of punishment to the gravity of the offence indicated by aletter of DGP & T referred to above are also indicative of what wouldjustify the imposition of a major penalty. Whereas, we cannot controlthe element of discretion in the manner of imposition of penalty, wehave a duty to see that the discretion is not untrammeled; they staywithin the confines of sound legal reasoning and they are tempered bythe even scales of mature justice.10. The Principles of Statutory Interpretation by JusticeG.B.Singh VII Edition 1999 at page 138 states "illustrations appendedto a section form part of the statute and although forming no partof the section, are relevance and value in the construction of thetext of the section and they should not be readily rejected to thesection". The observation of the learned author in relation tointerpretation to a statute is stated here only to explain thesituation, that although we are not dealing with the interpretationof any of the statutory provisions, examples laid down byadministrative authorities as measure of guidelines for properunderstanding of the instructions regarding the powers vested withthe authority in the matter of imposition of punishment are worthytools which cannot be discarded.11.We note further that the proceedings themselves have beenwith reference to the incident of the year 1991 and the employee hasbeen even superannuated. At this length of time it would be futile todirect the disciplinary authority to reconsider the aspect ofpunishment, when the employee is no longer in employment. In thenormal course, we would have been inclined to remit the matter forthe purpose of reconsidering the issue of punishment to thedisciplinary authority. But in the special circumstances, we deem itfit in the interest of justice to shorten the litigation to award apunishment of a minor penalty of reduction in the time scale of payby one stage for the period of three years without cumulative effectand not adversely affect his pension. Conclusions:12. On the question of penalty itself, it was contended bythe petitioner that the authority could not have inflicted thepunishment of reduction to lower stage in the time scale and alsodeprived the petitioner to earn his increment and it would amount todouble penalty. Now, such a mode of punishment is permissible in theform of major penalty as laid down under Section 11 of CCS CCA Rules,but since we have decided to reduce the penalty imposed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ disciplinary authority to a minor penalty, It is not necessary todwell at length on the tenability of such a punishment. 13. We find no scope for interference with the finding ofauthorities regarding the proof of charges themselves. We set asidethe order of Central Administrative Tribunal confirming the decisionof the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority in so faras it relates to the penalty of reduction of pay to the lower stagein the pay scale for three years and that during the said period, theapplicant therein would not earn increment and the reduction of payitself would have the effect of postponing the reduction in futureincrement. Instead, the penalty is modified as reduction to lowerstage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of threeyears without cumulative effect, not adversely affecting his pension. 14. The writ petition is partly allowed with the abovemodification of the order of Central Administrative Tribunal and theauthorities below as regards the punishment alone. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.VJYTo1. The RegistrarThe Central Administrative Tribunal ( Madras Bench )High Court Buildings, Chennai 600104.2. Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002.3. The Principal Accountant General ( A& E) Office of the principal Accountant General, Chennai 600 018.+ 1 CC To Mr.T.Ravikumar, ACGSC, Advocate SR NO.49000+ 1 CC To Mrs.M.Nirmala Devi, ACGSC, Advocate SR NO.499265+ 1 CC To Mr.S.Sadasharam, Advocate SR NO.48346W.P.No.34184 OF 2003MSM(CO)SRA(09/09/2008)