Kerala High Court · 2012

O.P.(CAT)No.189/20125restored to the higher post of Senior Accountant. Further, the period ofreduction was ordered to have the effect of postponement of futureincrements of pay on restoration to the higher post and that on re-promotion after having been found fit, he would not retain his originalseniority in the higher post that had been assigned to him prior to theimposition of penalty. On being aggrieved by Annexure-A3 order of thedisciplinary authority imposing the aforesaid penalty on him thepetitioner preferred Annexure-A22 appeal before the AppellateAuthority. The Appellate Authority afforded the petitioner a personalhearing and thereafter dismissed the said appeal as per Annexure-A4order. As noted earlier, it is challenging Annexure-A3 and A4 that thepetitioner herein approached the Central Administrative Tribunal byfiling O.A.No.1095 of 2010.3. The petitioner contended before the Tribunal that thevery action in not granting permission to examine the fourthrespondent, whose directions were alleged to have been disobeyed bythe petitioner, as a witness and denying him an opportunity to examinethe fourth respondent in the enquiry vitiated the enquiry. In thatcontext, it is to be noted that the charge against the petitioner wasthat he had not met the fourth respondent despite specific, oral and O.P.(CAT)No.189/20126written directions. As a matter of fact, the petitioner did not disputethe same and, in fact, in his explanation itself he had virtually admittedthe said fact though attempted to assign the reason fear factor, asmentioned above. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot have anysustainable grievance against it. It is also contended that consideringthe fact that the charge is only that he did not meet the fourthrespondent despite repeated oral and written directions the punishmentimposed on him as per Annexure-A3 which was confirmed by Annexure-A4, is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. It is contendedthat for such a minor misconduct the punishment of reduction to alower post was wholly unwarranted and therefore, highly excessive.Various other contentions have also been raised before the Tribunal toassail Annexures-A3 and A4, referred as such in Ext.P3 order, theimpugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as also theAppellate Authority in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.The Tribunal took note of the fact that virtually, as per the explanationdated 25.5.2007 to the memorandum of charges the petitioner hasadmitted that he did not respond to the request made by the GroupOfficer made under the directions from the Deputy Accountant general(GE). What he has stated by way of explanation was that he had notstepped into the chamber of the Group Officer on account of the fear O.P.(CAT)No.189/20127that something unfavorable might happen in case he stepped in thechamber of the Group Officer. It is contended that the disciplinary aswell as the appellate authorities have failed to take into considerationthe aspect of fear expressed by the petitioner in meeting the fourthrespondent. The Tribunal, after a careful consideration of the impugnedorders, found that there was absolutely no illegality or irregularity in theprocedures adopted so as to vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. Thepetitioner has been afforded with ample opportunities to adduce hisevidence and there was absolutely no violation of the principles ofnatural justice. It was found by the Tribunal that, on account hisexplanation carrying, virtually, an admission regarding the crux of theallegations against him that he had not turned up to the chamber of theGroup Officer and also the Deputy Accountant General (GE) despitespecific written directions to that regard and that the fact all thewitnesses were examined in the enquiry in his presence and that hewas given opportunity to cross examine them, the finding of theAppellate Authority regarding the absence of any procedural irregularityor illegality and reasonableness as regards the quantum of the penaltyneed no interference at all. After careful evaluation of the impugnedorders before it, the Tribunal found that the main issue to be decided atthe enquiry was whether the petitioner had refused to meet the higher O.P.(CAT)No.189/20128officers despite written request and, if so, whether it would amount tomisconduct or not. It was found that actually, there was nothing to beproved in the case as the petitioner himself had admitted the said factin his explanation. After a careful evaluation of the rival contentions inthe light of the materials on record as also taking in to consideration thejurisdictional limit for interference with departmental proceedings inview of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the decisionsin Parma Nanda v. State of Haryana ((1989) 2 SCC 1777) andState Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow ((1994) 2 SCC537) the Tribunal held that the limited jurisdiction of the Tribunal insuch circumstances is only to see whether punishment imposed isshockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved.The Tribunal found that failure to report before a higher officer despitewritten instructions in that behalf not only once but on severaloccasions would certainly amount to misconduct. It is based on suchappreciation of the entire issue that the Tribunal declined to interferewith the impugned orders and dismissed the original petition.4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andthe learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3. O.P.(CAT)No.189/201295. Evidently, the crux of the charge against the petitioner,as rightly put by the Tribunal, is that he had failed to report beforehigher officers in pursuance of specific written instructions in thatbehalf, not only once but on several occasions. A perusal of Annexures-A11, A13 and A14 would go to show that the conclusion arrived at asper the impugned order, by the Tribunal that the petitioner virtuallyadmitted the fact that he had not reported to the higher officersdespite the specific written instructions to that effect which waspreceded by oral instructions cannot be said to be faulty. Even in thiswrit petition, the petitioner had not raised a contention of compliancewith such lawful directions. The legality and sustainability of thedisciplinary proceedings as such and also the penalty imposed by thedisciplinary authority have already passed through scrutiny at twodifferent stages, initially, by the Appellate Authority and then, by theCentral Administrative Tribunal. The finding that the petitioner hadcommitted the misconduct by disobeying the lawful and reasonabledirections of the Deputy Accountant General (GE) was establishedbefore the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority as also theTribunal found no ground or reason calling for interference. It is fairly asettled position that in a case of this nature unless and until thepetitioner is able to establish a case of illegality in the matter of the O.P.(CAT)No.189/201210procedures adopted in the disciplinary proceedings or any illegality orimpropriety in any finding as being opposed to the settled position oflaw, the decision of the Tribunal calls for no interference at the hands ofthis Court. The petitioner has also not been able to establish that it is acase of no evidence. In fact, the stand that is reflected through theexplanations would reveal that he cannot raise such a contention that itis a case of no evidence and, in fact, he had not raised such acontention. Then, as rightly held by the Tribunal the question is onlywhether the penalty imposed on the petitioner is shockinglydisproportionate or not. In this case, as held by the disciplinaryauthority and the Appellate Authority which were virtually confirmed bythe findings of the Tribunal the action on the part of the petitioner canonly be styled as an insubordination amounting to misconduct.Obedience from subordinates in regard to all lawful and reasonabledirections from the higher officers is essential and inevitable for thesmooth functioning of any institution. No one can be permitted to floutlawful instructions of higher authorities with impunity The sense offear, as adverted to earlier, assigned as a reason by the petitioner inthis case for not entering into the chambers of the higher officers canonly be taken as ruse for escaping the culpability. The adamantattitude of the petitioner reflected through the explanation and also at O.P.(CAT)No.189/201211the stage of disciplinary proceedings and also the pleadings before theTribunal would undoubtedly reveal that the petitioner is not havingresipiscence. No element of repentance reflects in any suchproceedings and virtually, the petitioner, even after admitting thefactum of failure to report before the higher officer pursuant to thedirections for that behalf attempts only to justify his misconduct.Taking such misconduct on the part of an employee lightly may makeothers also to follow such deed and, in such eventuality, the entireaffairs of the office would go pell-mell. We are on the point that in anoffice like the office of the Accountant General discipline, obedience anddedication to work are highly essential. That apart, we find no reasonto interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, in thecircumstancesThis original petition lacks merit and accordingly, it isdismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JudgeSd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR JudgeTKS