CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE v. SRI. N.K. OUSEPH

dated 15.04.2011 and also appointed one Sri. I.N.Gopala, the Administrative Officer as Presenting Officer as per the order dated 15.04.2011. According to the appellants, a fair and proper enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer by following the principles of natural justice. The respondent participated in the enquiry and he was given full opportunity to participate and defend himself on the - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46889-DB WA No. 1583 of 2023 allegation of misconduct against him. The Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of misconduct and submitted a Report on the Articles of Charge by giving his findings on

29.04.2011. The respondent being aggrieved by the said findings submitted a reply to the appellants denying the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The appellants not satisfied with the said explanation, passed an order of dismissal.

4. It is further stated that questioning the order of dismissal, the respondent filed an appeal before the Director General and Appellate Authority of the Institute which came to be dismissed by order dated 02.03.2012. It is further stated that aggrieved by the said order, the respondent was before this Court in W.P.No.7913/2014. Learned Single Judge of this Court on hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire records, passed the impugned order, thereby quashed the order of penalty as well as appellate order. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is preferred by the Management/Institute. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:46889-DB WA No. 1583 of 2023

5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel Sri. Pavan Srinivas for Smt. Sunita Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. A.J.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire writ appeal records.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants with all vehemence would submit that the learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the fact that the respondent being a workman had admitted one of the charges with regard to the false allegations attributed against the Management/Institute. He would submit that such an admission of the respondent is sufficient to impose the major penalty of compulsory retirement. The learned counsel would further submit that the learned Single Judge has wrongly come to the conclusion that the very imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement is not correct and the matter would have been remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for conducting enquiry. He would further submit that in view of the grounds urged in the appeal memo and - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:46889-DB WA No. 1583 of 2023 under the facts and circumstances of this case, so also with regard to the seriousness of the charges framed against the respondent, the appellants are justified in imposing the major penalty, which ought not to have been interfered by the learned Single Judge. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellants took us through various documents produced along with the appeal memo as well as findings of the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and Orders of the Appellate Authority as well as the findings in the impugned judgment. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellants prayed to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. Repelling this submission, the learned counsel Sri. A.J.Srinivasan for respondent-workman would submit that as per the CCA Rules adopted by the appellants, an enquiry is necessary. Rule-14 of the CCA Rules provides for the same. He would further submit that unless an enquiry is conducted, no major punishment could have - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:46889-DB WA No. 1583 of 2023 been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Though it is contended that respondent has admitted one of the charges, that itself is not sufficient to impose major penalty. When the respondent has not admitted the other charges, the imposition of the major penalty against the respondent is disproportionate to the gravity and nature of the charge leveled against him. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the learned Single Judge thread bear has discussed the facts of the case and also lapse on the part of the appellants in conducting enquiry in accordance with the CCA Rules. The respondent has just in the capacity of office bearer of the Association submitted a memorandum to the Hon'ble Prime Minister and it was not his individual act. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondent justifies the order of learned Single Judge and submits that such well reasoned order shall not be interfered with in this appeal.

8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the argument of both sides. In view of the rival - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:46889-DB WA No. 1583 of 2023 submissions, the only point that would arise for our consideration is: "Whether the impugned order of the learned Single Judge requires any interference in this appeal?" Our answer to the above point would be in the 'Negative' for the following reasons:

9. Before adverting to the other aspects of the case, let us examine the admitted facts between both the sides. The respondent was a workman under the appellants and was working as "Technician-Grade 3" in Equipment Vibration Research Centre (EVRC) and High Power Laboratory in the Institute. The appellants have adopted the CCA Rules so also have got their own Central Power Research Institute (Service Conditions) Rules, 1989. The appellants issued the Articles of charges against the respondent as under: "ARTICLE-1 That Shri N.K. Ouseph while working as Technician Grade 3, in the HPL in the Institute, with 5 others, has - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:46889-DB WA No. 1583 of 2023 unauthorizedly sent a communication to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India and the Minister of Power, Government of India. The said act of Shri N.K. Ouseph the then Technician Grade 3, who is one of the six signatories, in unauthorizedly communicating with the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India and the Minister of Power, Government of India, is unbecoming of a Government Servant. ARTICLE -2 That the said Shri N.K. Ouseph, the then Technician Grade -3, has made false allegations against senior officer by misrepresenting the facts. This act of the said Shri N.K. Ouseph, the then Technician Grade 3, is in clear contravention of para 4 of Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs O M No. 118/52-Ests dated

30.04.1952 and also violation of provisions of CVC Manual Volume I under Chapter - Complaints. The above acts of Shri N.K. Ouseph, the then Technician Grade -3, tantamount to acts unbecoming of a Government Servant contraventions of provisions of Rule 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with Rule 4(e) of Central Power Research Institute (Service Conditions) Rules, 1989 (Working Rule No.2)." Before issuing the Articles of Charges, memorandum issued by the appellants, the respondent replied to the appellants. Thereafter on 29.11.2011 the - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:46889-DB WA No. 1583 of 2023 aforesaid charge memo was issued against him. Upon hearing the said charge memo on 02.12.2011, the respondent submitted a reply dated 12.12.2011 reiterating the contentions which he has taken up in his reply to the memorandum. The respondent submitted several replies to the enquiry and contended that the enquiry so conducted was not properly conducted in a fair manner. But even then, a communication was sent to the respondent on 17.10.2013 enclosing the enquiry report with a finding that the charges against the respondent stood proved. To that enquiry report, the respondent submitted his objections and ultimately an order was passed on 27.11.2013 by the Disciplinary Authority removing the respondent from service with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent submitted a reply expressing his dissatisfaction against such an order of removal. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the orders of the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 22.01.2014, thereby confirmed the major - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:46889-DB WA No. 1583 of 2023 penalty imposed on respondent. Thereafter, respondent filed the W.P.No.7913/2014 before this Court.

10. The aforesaid facts or the calendar of events that have taken place with regard to the charges framed against the respondent, which are admitted by both the side and they need not be proved.

11. Here, the grievance of the respondent is that enquiry was not properly conducted in a fair manner and as per the order sheet maintained, no proper enquiry conducted by the appellants. Though the enquiry report shows about conclusion of the enquiry on 14.03.2012, it is not so. Infact, the said enquiry report was prepared on the same day. Thus, the respondent has expressed his complete dissatisfaction against his unjust removal. Therefore, he prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 27.11.2013 of his removal. So also subsequent order dated 22.01.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority. - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:46889-DB WA No. 1583 of 2023

12. On perusal of the entire records of this appeal, it is an admitted fact between both sides that the Central Power Research Institute (Service Conditions) Rules, 1989 adopt CCA Rules the purpose of conducting departmental enquiry and imposing penalty. Rule-14 of CCA Rules specifically provides for procedure for imposing major penalties. As per Rule-11 (v) to (ix) penalties specified in Clauses, the Enquiry Authority has to conduct the enquiry and Disciplinary Authority while imposing any of the penalties have to impose a penalty as provided under the Rules. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule-14 of CCA Rules mandates the Disciplinary Authority to draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge and statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge. Such articles of charge so framed is required to be served on the workman or employee of the Institute. - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC:46889-DB WA No. 1583 of 2023

13. Rule-14(5)(a) of CCA Rules reads as under: "14.(5) (a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted, or, if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint under sub- rule (2), an Inquiring Authority for the purpose, and where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Government servant in his written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority shall record its findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in Rule 15."

14. On scruples reading of the above Rule, it makes it abundantly clear that if the charges are not admitted, the Disciplinary Authority has to appoint the Enquiry Authority to enquire into the articles of charge and where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the workman or employee of the Institute in his written defence, the Disciplinary Authority shall record its findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in Rule-15 of CCA Rules. Admittedly in this case, the Enquiry Authority or Disciplinary Authority have not followed the said procedure - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC:46889-DB WA No. 1583 of 2023 stated in Rule-14(5)(a) of CCA Rules and simply passed the major penalty of compulsory retirement on the ground that the respondent has admitted one of the charges and other charges are proved.

15. It is settled principle of law that as per the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court that, the right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, would include right to livelihood, that the order of termination of services of workman visits with civil consequences and jeopardizes not only his livelihood but also the career and livelihood of his dependants, and that therefore, before taking any action putting an end to the tenure of the workman, fair play required that a reasonable opportunity to put-forth his case be given and a domestic enquiry conducted, complying with the principles of natural justice. In the present case, admittedly no opportunity was given to the respondent- workman nor any enquiry held and even he is not called upon to prove his defence. But even then the Enquiry - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC:46889-DB WA No. 1583 of 2023 Officer has recorded the conclusive finding on the workman and has found him guilty. Even the Disciplinary Authority had proceeded on footing appellants-Management had power under the conduct rules, to terminate the services of workman therein. Therefore, under the circumstances, the principles of natural justice have not been followed by the appellants, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The very orders so passed by the appellants would be termed as arbitrary, unjust and unfair, violating Article-14 of the Constitution of India.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIVIL APPEAL No.12509/2024 in SATYENDRA SINGH v/s STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER decided

18.11.2024 has held that even in ex-parte enquiry, it is sine qua non to record evidence and to examine the witnesses for proving the charges. Relevant Para-17 reads as under: - 17 - NC: 2024:KHC:46889-DB WA No. 1583 of 2023 "17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi15 and Nirmala J. Jhala16, we are of the firm view that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges."

17. On the grounds discussed above, the order of compulsory retirement not being sustainable, as the respondent is already retired, the resultant position would be that the workman is entitled for the service and other consequential benefits including backwages as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge of this Court that the appellants have failed to make a proper enquiry before passing order of compulsory retirement, it is open for the respondent to justify the action and the respondent has submitted - 18 - NC: 2024:KHC:46889-DB WA No. 1583 of 2023 several replies and even the Disciplinary Authority is one against whom the allegations were made. He acted as Judge for himself which is against the service jurisprudence. Therefore, a defective enquiry in our opinion stands under same footing as no enquiry and without that enquiry the Disciplinary Authority ought not to have passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement. Even the Appellate Authority also not followed the proper procedure and has failed to perform its duty. The Appellate Authority ought to have considered the replies submitted by the respondent and would have ascertained that whether the Disciplinary Authority has followed the principles of natural justice or not. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants have not at all made out any acceptable cogent grounds to justify their action and interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. It is settled principle that, Writ Court can interfere into such orders which are against the principles of natural justice. As a futile attempt is made by the appellants to justify their action, this appeal is devoid - 19 - NC: 2024:KHC:46889-DB WA No. 1583 of 2023 of any merits and is liable to be dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the respondent, within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondent by appellants within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SMJ