Ram Shanker Sharma v. CAT, Allahabad and

Judgment

1. Heard Shri Gopal Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.01.2024 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (in short ‘the Tribunal’) has dismissed the Original Application (‘OA’) No.541 of 2009 filed

by the petitioner wherein he had challenged the initial order of punishment dated 03.10.1998 as well as the order dated

27.01.2009 dismissing his departmental appeal.

3. The petitioner, while working as Turner (HS-II) Field Gun Factory, Kanpur was served with a departmental charge- sheet under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short ‘the 1 of 6 Writ A No.5772 of 2025 (Ram Shanker Sharma v. CAT, Allahabad and 2 others.) Rules’) on 23.01.1998 alleging gross negligence of duties on his part and his conduct unbecoming of a government servant. Penalty was awarded to him on 03.10.1998 of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect, it was further ordered that petitioner shall not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of the said period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay.

4. Against the order of punishment, the petitioner filed a departmental appeal which was dismissed on 25.08.1999. The petitioner filed Original Application No.1484 of 1999 challenging the orders dated 03.10.1998 and 25.08.1999. The Tribunal disposed of the OA by order dated 14.10.2008 directing the appellate authority to re-decide the appeal. The appellate authority again dismissed the appeal on 27.01.2009. Hence, the Original Application No.541 of 2009 was filed which has been dismissed by the Tribunal by the order impugned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initial punishment order dated 03.10.1998 being cryptic, neither the appellate authority nor the Tribunal was justified in respectively dismissing the appeal and the OA. Submission is that allegation against the petitioner was that in the night shift on 24.09.1997, while he was assigned the job of Casing Dia Turning of T-72 Barrel Forge No. DP-388 in Machine No.FGK/122, he turned Dia 254.65 instead of 255.5 which is 370 mm to 405 mm away from BE side. Due to this wrong machining, the said Barrel was 2 of 6 Writ A No.5772 of 2025 (Ram Shanker Sharma v. CAT, Allahabad and 2 others.) finally rejected causing loss to the State. When the applicant was asked to explain the reasons for such negligence vide letter dated 25.09.1997, he submitted his reply dated 28.09.1997 stating that it was due to operational defect in the machine.

6. Further submission has been made that during the course of inquiry, PW-1 and PW-2 had given statements with respect to break out of the machine, however, the appellate order is based upon misreading of the said statements. Submission is that since initial order of punishment as well as the appellate order are wholly cryptic and do not assign any cogent reasons, the same are liable to be set aside. Alternative submission has been made that the matter may be remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order inasmuch as, before the Tribunal, challenge was laid not only to the appellate order but also the initial order of punishment.

7. Per contra, Shri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orders by contending that, in the first round of litigation, the Tribunal itself had remanded the matter to the appellate authority and once the appeal has been decided on merits, there is no occasion to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority. The order awarding punishment has also been said to be in accordance with law.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority had awarded punishment to the following effect:- 3 of 6 Writ A No.5772 of 2025 (Ram Shanker Sharma v. CAT, Allahabad and 2 others.) “2. NOW Thereof the undersigned hereby impose on Shri R.S. Sharma turnover (HS-II) T.No.265/GB/FGK the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.4700/- to Rs.4600/- in the time scale of pay Rs.4000-100-6000 for a period of three years with cumulative effect w.e.f., 03.10.1998.

3. It is further ordered that Shri R.S. Sharma Turnover (HS- II) T.No.265/GB/FGK will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay.”

9. Against the said order, the appeal was dismissed on

25.08.1999. Though both the orders were challenged before the Tribunal, the initial punishment order dated 03.10.1998 was not set aside by the Tribunal, rather the matter was remitted to the appellate authority. The petitioner, at any stage, did not assail order of the Tribunal nor did he press for remittance of the matter to the Disciplinary Authority. Rather he pressed his departmental appeal on merits pursuant to the order of remand and once the appellate authority has again rejected the appeal on merits on 27.01.2009, the petitioner cannot now fall back to the initial order of punishment and, hence, prayer to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority cannot be granted.

10. The Court can also take aid of the underlying principle enshrined under Explanation V to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, though these are not suit proceedings but the principle would be the same, i.e. to say that a relief claimed by a party, if not granted by the Court, would be deemed to have been refused. Therefore, this Court is of the view that even if the petitioner challenged initial order dated

03.10.1998 alongwith the appellate order before the Tribunal 4 of 6 Writ A No.5772 of 2025 (Ram Shanker Sharma v. CAT, Allahabad and 2 others.) but the Tribunal, in its wisdom, set aside only the appellate order and remanded the matter to appellate authority, interference in the initial punishment order would be deemed to have been refused by the Tribunal.

11. In view of the above, we shall not go into merits of the initial punishment order but would confine ourselves to examine correctness of the appellate order dated 27.01.2009 and the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the Tribunal.

12. Having perused the appellate order dated 27.01.2009, we find that pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the appellate authority considered two issues raised by the petitioner in the appeal and following findings were recorded while dismissing the appeal:- “On re-consideration, following the CAT's Order it is seen that the appellant has raised two issues in the subject appeal. First of all, he has mentioned that the damaged Barrel No.DP-388B was loaded on a turning machine which was under frequent change of behaviour of machine stop of feed which was beyond control of individual manually. But court of inquiry did not consider this fact and held the charges established against him. Secondly, he has requested for consideration of his appeal on humanitarian grounds. Detail perusal of the inquiry report reveals that on 25.4.97 morning, that is after the night shift of 24.4.97, the machine was checked by maintenance section but no fault was found and it was working properly. During enquiry proceedings this was confirmed by PW-1 & PW-3. Hence the contention of the appellant is not backed by any substantive evidences, which rather points otherwise. It is also seen that the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the penalty appealed against after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct. 5 of 6 Writ A No.5772 of 2025 (Ram Shanker Sharma v. CAT, Allahabad and 2 others.) While imposing the penalty the procedures laid down in CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 were followed. There was no denial of natural justice in course of disciplinary proceeding. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty appealed against after taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct alleged in the chargememo dt. 23.1.98.”

13. The Tribunal has also considered the case of the petitioner step by step and right from its inception and has found that the appellate authority had considered the merits of the case and principles of natural justice were also followed by the department. With such observations, the Tribunal has dismissed the OA. 14 Considering the nature of charge, inquiry conducted and orders passed at various stages of proceedings, we find that the penalty awarded to the petitioner was just and proper in the facts of the case. Further, we are not inclined to remand the matter for another reason that the matter is quite old. In the facts of the instant case, legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium also applies which means that it is in the interest of the State that there must be an end to litigation.

15. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Jyotsana (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) 6 of 6 JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

by the petitioner wherein he had challenged the initial order of punishment dated 03.10.1998 as well as the order dated

27.01.2009 dismissing his departmental appeal.

3. The petitioner, while working as Turner (HS-II) Field Gun Factory, Kanpur was served with a departmental charge- sheet under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short ‘the 1 of 6 Writ A No.5772 of 2025 (Ram Shanker Sharma v. CAT, Allahabad and 2 others.) Rules’) on 23.01.1998 alleging gross negligence of duties on his part and his conduct unbecoming of a government servant. Penalty was awarded to him on 03.10.1998 of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect, it was further ordered that petitioner shall not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of the said period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay.

4. Against the order of punishment, the petitioner filed a departmental appeal which was dismissed on 25.08.1999. The petitioner filed Original Application No.1484 of 1999 challenging the orders dated 03.10.1998 and 25.08.1999. The Tribunal disposed of the OA by order dated 14.10.2008 directing the appellate authority to re-decide the appeal. The appellate authority again dismissed the appeal on 27.01.2009. Hence, the Original Application No.541 of 2009 was filed which has been dismissed by the Tribunal by the order impugned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initial punishment order dated 03.10.1998 being cryptic, neither the appellate authority nor the Tribunal was justified in respectively dismissing the appeal and the OA. Submission is that allegation against the petitioner was that in the night shift on 24.09.1997, while he was assigned the job of Casing Dia Turning of T-72 Barrel Forge No. DP-388 in Machine No.FGK/122, he turned Dia 254.65 instead of 255.5 which is 370 mm to 405 mm away from BE side. Due to this wrong machining, the said Barrel was 2 of 6 Writ A No.5772 of 2025 (Ram Shanker Sharma v. CAT, Allahabad and 2 others.) finally rejected causing loss to the State. When the applicant was asked to explain the reasons for such negligence vide letter dated 25.09.1997, he submitted his reply dated 28.09.1997 stating that it was due to operational defect in the machine.

6. Further submission has been made that during the course of inquiry, PW-1 and PW-2 had given statements with respect to break out of the machine, however, the appellate order is based upon misreading of the said statements. Submission is that since initial order of punishment as well as the appellate order are wholly cryptic and do not assign any cogent reasons, the same are liable to be set aside. Alternative submission has been made that the matter may be remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order inasmuch as, before the Tribunal, challenge was laid not only to the appellate order but also the initial order of punishment.

7. Per contra, Shri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orders by contending that, in the first round of litigation, the Tribunal itself had remanded the matter to the appellate authority and once the appeal has been decided on merits, there is no occasion to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority. The order awarding punishment has also been said to be in accordance with law.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority had awarded punishment to the following effect:- 3 of 6 Writ A No.5772 of 2025 (Ram Shanker Sharma v. CAT, Allahabad and 2 others.) “2. NOW Thereof the undersigned hereby impose on Shri R.S. Sharma turnover (HS-II) T.No.265/GB/FGK the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.4700/- to Rs.4600/- in the time scale of pay Rs.4000-100-6000 for a period of three years with cumulative effect w.e.f., 03.10.1998.

3. It is further ordered that Shri R.S. Sharma Turnover (HS- II) T.No.265/GB/FGK will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay.”

9. Against the said order, the appeal was dismissed on

25.08.1999. Though both the orders were challenged before the Tribunal, the initial punishment order dated 03.10.1998 was not set aside by the Tribunal, rather the matter was remitted to the appellate authority. The petitioner, at any stage, did not assail order of the Tribunal nor did he press for remittance of the matter to the Disciplinary Authority. Rather he pressed his departmental appeal on merits pursuant to the order of remand and once the appellate authority has again rejected the appeal on merits on 27.01.2009, the petitioner cannot now fall back to the initial order of punishment and, hence, prayer to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority cannot be granted.

10. The Court can also take aid of the underlying principle enshrined under Explanation V to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, though these are not suit proceedings but the principle would be the same, i.e. to say that a relief claimed by a party, if not granted by the Court, would be deemed to have been refused. Therefore, this Court is of the view that even if the petitioner challenged initial order dated

03.10.1998 alongwith the appellate order before the Tribunal 4 of 6 Writ A No.5772 of 2025 (Ram Shanker Sharma v. CAT, Allahabad and 2 others.) but the Tribunal, in its wisdom, set aside only the appellate order and remanded the matter to appellate authority, interference in the initial punishment order would be deemed to have been refused by the Tribunal.

11. In view of the above, we shall not go into merits of the initial punishment order but would confine ourselves to examine correctness of the appellate order dated 27.01.2009 and the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the Tribunal.

12. Having perused the appellate order dated 27.01.2009, we find that pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the appellate authority considered two issues raised by the petitioner in the appeal and following findings were recorded while dismissing the appeal:- “On re-consideration, following the CAT's Order it is seen that the appellant has raised two issues in the subject appeal. First of all, he has mentioned that the damaged Barrel No.DP-388B was loaded on a turning machine which was under frequent change of behaviour of machine stop of feed which was beyond control of individual manually. But court of inquiry did not consider this fact and held the charges established against him. Secondly, he has requested for consideration of his appeal on humanitarian grounds. Detail perusal of the inquiry report reveals that on 25.4.97 morning, that is after the night shift of 24.4.97, the machine was checked by maintenance section but no fault was found and it was working properly. During enquiry proceedings this was confirmed by PW-1 & PW-3. Hence the contention of the appellant is not backed by any substantive evidences, which rather points otherwise. It is also seen that the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the penalty appealed against after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct. 5 of 6 Writ A No.5772 of 2025 (Ram Shanker Sharma v. CAT, Allahabad and 2 others.) While imposing the penalty the procedures laid down in CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 were followed. There was no denial of natural justice in course of disciplinary proceeding. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty appealed against after taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct alleged in the chargememo dt. 23.1.98.”

13. The Tribunal has also considered the case of the petitioner step by step and right from its inception and has found that the appellate authority had considered the merits of the case and principles of natural justice were also followed by the department. With such observations, the Tribunal has dismissed the OA. 14 Considering the nature of charge, inquiry conducted and orders passed at various stages of proceedings, we find that the penalty awarded to the petitioner was just and proper in the facts of the case. Further, we are not inclined to remand the matter for another reason that the matter is quite old. In the facts of the instant case, legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium also applies which means that it is in the interest of the State that there must be an end to litigation.

15. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Jyotsana (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) 6 of 6 JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad