IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.28602 OF 2014 [S-CAT] BETWEEN:
DR. BHEEMAYYA BADESAB, SON OF BADE SAB, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, WAS WORKING AS SPECIAL GRADE-II OFFICER OF PUBLIC HEALTH SUB-CADRE OF CHS, AIRPORT HEALTH ORGANISATION, MUMBAI, NOW RESIDING AT NO.12, SRI KRISHNA NIVAS, SHAKTHINAGAR, ARUN COLONY, GOKULA ROAD, HUBLI. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI. M.RAGHAVENDRACHAR, ADVOCATE] AND THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001. ... RESPONDENT [BY SRI. S.R.DODAWAD, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL] * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 18.2.2014 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.30 OF 2010 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.30 OF 2010 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioner is that he entered Government service on 14.10.1977. He joined the Public Health Special cadre on 21.05.1990. In 1993, he secured an engagement in the Sultanate of Oman. The Government of India has a friendly relationship with the said country. In terms of the Communication dated 15.01.1993, various terms and conditions were imposed on the petitioner for the purpose of accepting the foreign assignment. He was allowed to be on foreign assignment from 21.03.1993 to 08.11.1997. He accepted all the conditions and went abroad. After returning from the foreign assignment, the petitioner joined the parent cadre on 10.11.1997. On the same day, he gave a request for voluntary retirement with effect from 07.02.1998 and thereafter went on leave. His explanation was forwarded to the Government. Since he handed over the charge and did not report for duty, a charge memo was issued to him for unauthorized absence from 07.02.1998. He denied the charge. An enquiry was initiated. The charge was held not proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings and issued a notice of disagreement. On considering the plea of the petitioner, he was dismissed from service. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred the instant application in Original Application No.30 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal [‘Tribunal’ for short]. By the impugned order, the same was dismissed. Hence, this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the charge has not been proved. The Disciplinary Authority committed an error in dismissing the petitioner from service. None of the conditions imposed on him while going abroad has been violated. Under these circumstances, the charge has to be considered as not proved.
3. The same is disputed by the respondent’s counsel. He contends that there is a violation of Rule 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 [‘1972 Rules’ for short]. Therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate relief has to be granted. The petitioner has gone on foreign assignment with effect from 21.03.1993 to 08.11.1997. The same was approved by the Government of India. It has issued terms and conditions for the said foreign assignment. We have considered the same in detail. 21 Clauses have been stated therein with regard to the terms and conditions. There is not even a single Clause which is applicable to the petitioner’s service after he returned back to India. Therefore, the plea of the respondent that the petitioner did not abide by Rule 48-A of 1972 Rules cannot be accepted. The petitioner was under an impression and rightly so, that he is bound only by the terms and conditions imposed on him in the Communication dated 15.01.1993. Therefore, the charge framed outside the terms and conditions and imposing punishment on the petitioner cannot be accepted. If the respondent so intended, such conditions should have been stated in the aforesaid communication. Furthermore, there is not even a reference in the terms and conditions, that he shall be bound by the 1972 Rules. There is no indication of the petitioner being compelled to work after he returned back to India. None of the conditions imposed have been violated by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the charge framed against the petitioner has been proved.
5. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal mislead itself in dismissing the instant application. The punishment imposed on the petitioner dismissing him from service is therefore inappropriate. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.
The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 18.02.2014 passed in Original application No.30 of 2010 is set aside. The order passed by the respondent dismissing the petitioner from service is set aside. The petitioner is imposed with a punishment of compulsory retirement with all consequential benefits excluding interest.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Ksm*