AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The issues involved in all these cases are closely interlinked with each other and hence we are dealing with the same together.
O.P.(CAT) Nos.3698, 3645, 3652, 3745, 3689, 3746 and 3805 of 2011 arise from a common verdict passed by the Tribunal on 02.9.2011 in O.A.No.592/2010 and connected cases, whereas O.P.(CAT) No.3648/2011 is connected with O.P. (CAT) No.3544/2011. O.P.(CAT) No.3651/2011 is an independent case, though it involves a similar question.
The crux of the matter relates to the disciplinary action taken by the department for some delinquency shown by the employees involving violation of Rule 7(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The issue was with regard to participation in a demonstration held on different dates in the office premises, allegedly during the office hours. Based on the materials collected, the competent authority found the delinquent employee guilty of the misconduct and it was accordingly, that a minor penalty was imposed. This was sought to be challenged by filing the O.A. raising several grounds; both legal as well as factual. The Tribunal, as per Ext.P3 order, held that the applicant had admitted his participation in the demonstration on various dates as referred to in the charge sheet. However, it was observed in paragraph 7 that there was no specific allegation in the charge memo that the demonstration was held during the office hours. The Tribunal further observed that in some cases, there was specific allegation of having participated in the demonstration during the office hours and hence the finding of the departmental authority was sustained and orders were passed accordingly. But, in the instant case, since no such specific allegation was there, according to the Tribunal, the finding of the authority was not liable to be sustained. It was accordingly, that the impugned orders were set aside and O.As were allowed.
The reasoning given by the Tribunal in paragraph 7 is in the following terms:
"There is no specific allegation that the demonstrations were held during office hours in the charge memos or that the applicants have deserted their work. In certain cases where there was specific allegation of having participated in demonstrations during office hours we have sustained the charges in the absence of any specific denial thereto. Admittedly in these cases the allegation is only participation in demonstration. Hence, going by the earlier decisions of this Tribunal as well as decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the penalty orders, appeal orders and revisional orders as the case may be are not sustainable. Accordingly, we quash these orders and the benefits stands restored to the applicants."
During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners that exactly similar issue had already been considered by this Court and the question has been answered in favour of the department, explaining the scope of the relevant rules and the violation involved. We have also made it clear that the misconduct of participation in the demonstration within the office premises is established, it was sufficient to constitute a misconduct and the fact whether it was really in the office hours or not was immaterial. We have dealt with the issue as per the judgment in O.P.(CAT) No.381/2010 delivered on 16.2.2018 and also in the common judgment in O.P.(CAT) Nos.3229/2011 and 3238/2011 delivered on 21.2.2018. In these cases, which were considered and decided by us on 16.2.2018 and 21.2.2018, the specific instance of shouting slogans and the indifferent behaviour were taken note of observing that there was a clear instance of misconduct. In O.P. (CAT)Nos.3229/2011 and 3238/2011, we further made it clear as to the circumstance under which the nature of misconduct has to be evaluated and appreciated.
By virtue of the turn of events, we are of the firm view that the Tribunal has gone on a wrong target in holding that, in so far as there was no specific allegation that the participation in the demonstration was conducted in the office hours, it will not amount to misconduct and, in turn, setting aside the order passed by the authorities concerned. Since participation in the demonstration was within the office premises, that will definitely amount to the misconduct and as such, we find it appropriate to cause the verdict passed by the Tribunal under challenge to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly. The minor punishment inflicted upon the delinquent employee stands affirmed. These Original Petitions are allowed accordingly, in terms of the judgments delivered in O.P. (CAT)Nos.3229/2011 and 3238/2011. No costs.