IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.30046/2017 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:
SRI S.A.MELMALGI S/O SRI AYYANAGOUDA 46 YEARS OCCN:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (DEV) O/O GENERAL MANAGER (DEV), ITPC BSNL, TELEPHONE BHAVAN, SAIFABAD HYDERABAD-500 004 RESIDING AT: F2 TELECOM OFFICERS COMPLEX ROAD NO.92, ‘JUBILEE HILLS’ HYDERABAD-500 096 ...PETITIONER (BY SHRI P.A.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & IT SANCHAR BHAVAN, NO.20, ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI-110 001 2. UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS BY ITS SECRETARY, NO.20 ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001 3. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER KARNATAKA TELECOM CIRCLE NO.1, S.V.ROAD HALASURU, BENGALURU-560 008 4. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER IT PROJECT CIRCLE RTTC BUILDING, PLOT NO.121/122 MIDC ‘G’ BLOCK, CHINCHWAD PUNE-411 019 …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI C.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; ASG-SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2016 IN O.A.170/334/2016 AT ANNEX-A PASSED BY CAT, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU AND ALLOW OA 170/334/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE CAT, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU BY GRANT OF RELIEF PRAYER FOR HEREIN.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.11.2017, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.12.2016 in O.A.No.170/00334/2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (‘CAT’ for short), dismissing the said application.
2. We have heard Shri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri C. Ramakrishna, learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 and perused the records.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status in the application filed before the CAT.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, the respondent, Department of Telecommunications (‘DOT’ for short) initiated certain disciplinary proceedings on a charge that the applicant had countersigned certain bills presented by a private Contractor in respect of certain works, which were not actually carried out, resulting in a loss of ` 19 Lakhs to the DOT. The Inquiry Officer, held the charges as ‘not proved’. The disciplinary authority accepted the said finding. However, the Central Vigilance Commission (‘CVC’ for short) disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and advised for imposition of penalty upon the applicant. The applicant was notified of the advise tendered by the CVC. The applicant submitted his representation on 30.07.2011. After considering the same, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The said order was challenged before the CAT in the first round of litigation. The CAT, vide it’s order dated 24.01.2014 in O.A.No.132/2013, set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority on the ground that the same was not a speaking order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:-
“14. We do not find in the impugned order (Annexure A14) a logical progression of thought: a decision to accept the finding of the IO has suddenly mutated into one to accept the advice of the CVC. There is nothing to show why the DA made this sudden volte face. The respondents have not given any reasons why they accepted the views of CVC having in the first place accepted the Inquiry Officer’s contention that the charges against applicant were not proved. The reply statement is also silent on this point. The Disciplinary Authority is free to accept or decline the advice of the CVC. However, the DA is expected to put in writing his reasons for his decision, however, brief. In the absence of any such reasoning in the impugned order we are forced to come to the conclusion that the advice of the CVC was indeed accepted in a mechanical manner by the DA. The impugned order is not a speaking order. We therefore, set aside the impugned order Annexure A14 and remand the case to the Disciplinary Authority for necessary action in the light of the rules and instructions on the subject and based on the merits of the case. We once again make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case against the applicant.
15. The OA is disposed of in the above terms. There is no order as to costs.”
(emphasis supplied) 5. After the remand, the Government of India, passed an order dated 20.08.2014 to continue the proceedings. A copy of the advise tendered by the UPSC., was also made available to the applicant inviting his response, if any. The applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 16.10.2014 as per Annexure-A20. After considering the same and other material on record, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 15.04.2015, again imposed the penalty of reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect.
6. The applicant challenged the said order dated 15.04.2015, in the present proceedings before the CAT, principally on the ground that, the material on which the disciplinary authority recorded his reasons for disagreement in paragraph No.3 of his order, had not come into existence after the earlier punishment order dated 20.03.2012.
7. The CAT, on consideration of the material on record, categorically held that, the applicant had misinterpreted it’s earlier order. The CAT, has precisely recorded its finding as follows:-
“13. Similarly we cannot accept the applicant’s stand the Annexure A21 was issued in a mechanical manner and that the DA was influenced by the advice of the UPSC and the CVC and did not take an independent decision. We made it very clear in our order dated 24.01.2014 that the “disciplinary authority is free to accept or decline the advice of CVC”. This is not the first case where the DA has changed his mind after studying the opinion of the CVC or UPSC; nor will it be the last. The DA is fully within his rights to accept the advice of the authority concerned. However he is expected to state why he accepted such advice. Whereas the penalty order dated 20.03.2012 was all too brief, Annexure A21 is a detailed order that has examined relevant aspects of the case. As far as the opinion of GEQD is concerned the respondents have pointed out that the IO did not take the cognizance of GEQD opinion during the inquiry. The respondents also note that it is a matter of record that an amount of Rs.17 lakhs was recovered from the contractor; this reinforces the claim that such excess payment was made in the first place. We are not impressed by the applicant’s stand that the responsibility of any irregularity rested with field officers alone and that he as counter-signing authority was not answerable for any lapse; to our mind this amounts to nothing less than evading responsibility.”
(emphasis supplied) Further, considering the gravity of the offence, the CAT did not interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed.
8. In substance, the argument of the petitioner is that, there was no fresh material before the disciplinary authority after the previous punishment order dated 20.03.2012, to record his dis-agreement.
9. We have carefully perused the first punishment order dated 24.01.2014, the order passed by the CAT, setting aside the first punishment order, the second punishment order dated 20.08.2014, impugned before the CAT and the order passed by the CAT thereon dated 22.12.2016, impugned in this writ petition.
10. In our considered view:
the CAT, has rightly held that the petitioner has misconstrued its first punishment order;
the second punishment order dated 15.04.2015, is a well reasoned order, having been passed after taking into consideration all the relevant material on record including the advise tendered by the UPSC., and the CVC; and CAT was right in not interfering with the quantum of punishment, keeping in view, the gravity of the charge.
11. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are at one with the decision arrived at by the CAT.
12. Resultantly, this writ petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE cp* Sd/- JUDGE