A.M. Christy vs Union of India (UOI)

P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, dated 18.08.2005 made in O.A. No.

1157 of 2004, confirming the order of the 1st respondent dated 27.10.2004 as well as 2nd respondent dated 04.09.2002, the petitioner has filed

the above writ petition to quash those orders.

The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:-

(a) According to him, he was serving in the Army and discharged on 31.03.1994 from military service. After retirement as an Ex-servicemen, he

joined the Civil Employment as Driver under the 2nd respondent, namely, the Raksha Seva Staff College, Wellington (Nilgiris), as Driver during

February 1997. The 2nd respondent issued a charge memo dated 04.01.2002 stating that on 03.01.2002 at 17.45 hours, he was found

intoxicated and so certified by a qualified Medical Officer. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the said explanation, the 2nd

respondent appointed Lt. Col. T. Nandakumar as Enquiry Officer, 3rd respondent herein. The petitioner was permitted to engage one R.P.K.

Venkata Raman as defence Assistant. During the course of enquiry, after a particular stage, the petitioner boycotted the enquiry. The Enquiry

Officer submitted a report to the 2nd respondent holding that the charge leveled against the petitioner is proved. The 2nd respondent by his

proceedings dated 04.09.2002, passed an order imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service under Rule 11 (vii) of Central Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short CCS (CCA) Rules).

(b) Against the said order, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, without affording an opportunity to the

petitioner, modified the punishment as one of removal from service, instead of compulsory retirement passed by the 2nd respondent. The said

order was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 523 of 2003 and by order dated 30.10.2003, the Tribunal, set aside

the said order and directed the 1st respondent to issue notice to the petitioner before modifying the punishment as one of removal from service.

Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a notice calling for an explanation to the petitioner, as to why the punishment should not be enhanced. The

petitioner submitted a detailed representation. But the 1st respondent, without appreciation of the fact, passed an order dismissing the appeal and

modified the punishment by removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred O.A. No. 1157 of 2004 before

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and ultimately the said appeal was also dismissed by order dated 18.08.2005. Questioning the

same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

After taking us through the impugned order of the Tribunal and the other proceedings, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity in the enquiry and in any event the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities failed to

note that the punishments imposed on earlier occasions are minor.

On going through the relevant materials, orders of Original and Appellate Authorities as well as the impugned order of the Tribunal, we are

unable to accept the said contention for the following reasons. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/applicant is an Ex-serviceman and he was

discharged on 31.03.1994 and thereafter, he was re-employed as Civilian MT Driver at Defence Services College, Wellington (Nilgiris) on

11.02.1997. The said post was later re-designated as Civilian Motor Driver (Ordinary Grade) during 1999. The charge against the

applicant/petitioner was that, he was found intoxicated at 17.45 hours on 03.01.2002. The fact that he was in a position of intoxication which was

also certified by a qualified Medical Officer. Though the petitioner has submitted his explanation, since the same was not acceptable, an enquiry

was conducted by appointing Lt. Col. T. Nandakumar as Enquiry Officer.

It is further seen that though the petitioner participated in the enquiry, the materials placed show that he stopped attending enquiry in the mid-

way. The Enquiry Officer, based on the materials, submitted a report holding that the charges leveled against the applicant are proved. It is also

seen that copy of the report was furnished to the applicant. The Disciplinary Authority, after taking note of the Enquiry Proceedings, report and the

earlier antecedents of the applicant, concluded that the applicant should not be retained in service in public interest, passed an order compulsorily

retiring him from service. Though, initially the said order was modified by the Appellate Authority as one of the removal from service, subsequently,

on direction by the Tribunal, fresh notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering his further explanation, the Appellate Authority,

confirmed his earlier decision and modified the punishment from compulsory retirement to removal from service.

It is clear that after finding that the applicant had consumed alcohol while he was on duty, after framing proper charges, conducting enquiry and

based on the report, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order, which was modified by the Appellate Authority, after affording opportunity to the

petitioner. Though, it was argued that the earlier punishments are not serious one, the particulars furnished show that the applicant is a habitual

drunkard and in his short tenure of six years of service with effect from February 1997 to September 2002, he was awarded the following

punishments for having been found in the influence of alcohol while on duty:-

a) Warned in writing on 10.07.1997.

b) Minor penalty of censure during December 1999, under Rule 11(i) of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965.

c) Minor penalty of with holding of one increment of pay for a period of one year with effect from February 2002, under Rule 11 (iv) of CCS

(CC&A) Rules, 1965.

In such circumstances, it cannot be claimed that earlier punishments are not relevant for consideration. It is not the case of the applicant that he had

unblemished service. It is also not in dispute that his job is to drive vehicle. Though an argument was advanced that he consumed liquor late in the

evening that is at 17.45 hours, the fact remains that he was on duty even at the relevant time. All these aspects have been considered by the

Authorities as well as the Tribunal. In the absence of any other material, we are in agreement that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.