Md. Samsul Ali vs The Union Of India & Ors.

PER: SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A):

The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

Sri Adil Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is working as Driver (Grade III) in the Office of the Manager, Mail Motor Service (MMS), Department of Posts, Guwahati. Initially, he was selected to the post of Driver, MMS on 20.04.2000 on daily wage basis through practical test and interview. Senior Manager, MMS, Guwahati on 07.09.2011 has appointed him to the Post of Driver (Grade III) Time Scale in the Pay Scale of Rs.5200-20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1900/- (Annexure-A/7). While he was working on Daily Wage Basis Driver in MMS, one contractual Driver in MMS Sri Kanak Das had lodged a Complaint on 08.12.2011 (Annexure-A/8) against him by alleging that the applicant along with the then Manager, MMS, Guwahati on 31.10.2010 took one Silk Sari worth Rs. 10,800/- from his residence and had demanded some money from the contractual Driver in lieu of regularization of his service. Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Guwahati Division, Guwahati by order dated 09.12.2011 had transferred the applicant from MMS Guwahati to Guwahati Postal Division and on the same day, he was placed under suspension (Annexure-A/9) and proposed to hold an enquiry against him. Thereafter, Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Guwahati Division, Guwahati vide Memorandum dated 10.04.2012 (Annexure-A/14), had decided to hold an enquiry against the applicant under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965. Enquiry Authority and Presenting Officer were appointed vide letter dated 26.04.2012. Enquiry authority conducted inquiry and submitted his report on 30.04.2014 (Annexure-A/15) wherein he held that the allegation against the applicant not proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority by Order dated 15/16.06.2015 had awarded penalty of “Censure” to the applicant after more than 1(one) year of submission of Inquiry Report (Annexure-A/17). Respondent No.3 by Order dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure-A) had remitted the case to the Disciplinary Authority for De-Novo proceedings from the stage of examination of prosecution/State Witnesses under the provision of Rules-29(1)(v) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 19.05.2016 had appointed Inquiry Authority to conduct De-novo inquiry into the charges framed against the applicant from the stage of examination of Prosecution/State Witnesses. The Presenting Officer as well as Inquiry Officer submitted their report on 14.06.2017 and 25.07.2017 (Annexures-A/19 & 20). Applicant submitted his representation on 13.10.2017 denying all the charges brought against him (Annexure-A/21). The respondent No.5 by Memo dated 31.12.2019 had imposed Major Punishment on the applicant by reducing his pay 1(one) stage in time scale/Pay Matrix of the Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20200 for a period of 3(Three) years with cumulative effect from the date of his next increment falls due (Annexure-A/1). Further, the applicant will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of said period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay. Being aggrieved, applicant submitted his appeal before the respondent No. 3 i.e. Appellate Authority on 10.02.2020 (Annexure-A/23). The Appellate authority by Order dated 29.07.2020 (Annexure-A/2) without going through the merit of the case has upheld the major punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

Sri Ahmed has contended that De-Novo proceedings against the applicant are highly illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law; also second enquiry is not permissible in law on the identical allegations provided that the disciplinary authority after the first enquiry has decided the allegations on merit. When minor punishment ‘Censure’ was issued to the delinquent employee as a result of an enquiry, the de novo enquiry on the same charge is not permissible in law. He also cited the case of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench in the case of Avesh Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, reported in 2025 Supreme (All) 2297 and submitted that disciplinary authorities cannot initiate a de-novo inquiry after prior exoneration without legal basis, affirming the need for adherence to established procedures in disciplinary actions.

Sri A. Kundu, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents has submitted that a Government Servant may be placed under suspension where a disciplinary case against him/her is contemplated or is pending as stipulated in Rule 10(1) of CCS Rules 1965. It is settled proposition of law that no opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the employee concerned before passing the order of suspension. The case of the applicant was remitted by the Appellate Authority to the Disciplinary Authority from the stage of examination of prosecution/state witnesses by exercising the power conferred under the provision of Rules 29(1)(v) of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965. Accordingly, the Inquiry Authority proceeded to conduct the inquiry from the stage of examination of prosecution/state witnesses as specified but not by issuing a fresh charge sheet. As per Sri Kundu, there is some delay in finalization of the case due to conduct of de novo proceedings and the transfer of the Investigating Officer from Guwahati to Silchar Division.

We have heard Sri Adil Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A. Kundu, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents and scrutinised the entire records of the case.

The chronology set out above is in order. We additionally note that the applicant had preferred an appeal against the suspension order on 26.12.2011 before the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Guwahati Division, Guwahati (Annexure-A/11), and had submitted a representation dated 20.05.2014 (Annexure-A/16) against the inquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority awarded the penalty of 'Censure on 15/16.06.2015. The Memorandum dated 10.04.2012 framed 4 Articles of Charge (Annexure-A/14). It is on this record and specifically on the order dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure-A) remitting the case for De-Novo proceedings under Rule 29(1)(v) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, which the applicant contends is inapplicable in view of Som Nath Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (1994) 27 ATC 771, and Sujit Kr. Debey Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 195 Swamy's CL Digest 1997- that we proceed to examine the applicant's principal contention. The eventual punishment order dated 31.12.2019 (Annexure-A/1) reduced the applicant by one stage from Rs. 25,200/- to Rs. 24,500/- in the time scale/Pay Matrix of the Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20200 for a period of 3 (Three) years with cumulative effect from the date of his next increment falls due, and was confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.07.2020 (Annexure-A/2).

On a bare reading of the order dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure-A), it is seen that Respondent No.3, in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 29(1)(v) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, remitted the case to the Disciplinary Authority for continuation of the enquiry from the stage of examination of the Prosecution/State Witnesses, and not for a fresh enquiry into the charges ab initio. The record bears this out: no fresh charge-sheet was issued, no fresh Enquiry Officer/Presenting Officer appointment was made and the enquiry proceeded from the specified stage onward, culminating in the reports dated 14.06.2017 and 25.07.2017. A remand for continuation of an enquiry from a specified stage, on the basis of specific infirmities found in the manner in which that stage had earlier been conducted, does not amount to a de-novo enquiry in the sense of a second, independent enquiry into the same charges. The two are analytically distinct: a de-novo enquiry restarts the process; a remand for continuation revives and carries forward the same enquiry from the point of infirmity. This distinction is material because the applicant’s principal submission that a second enquiry on identical charges is impermissible once a minor penalty has been imposed on the basis of an earlier enquiry proceeds on the premise that what occurred here was a second, independent enquiry, a premise this Tribunal does not accept for the reasons stated above.

We take note of Sri Kundu’s submission regarding the delay in finalisation of the case, attributable to the conduct of the continued enquiry and to the transfer of the Investigating Officer from Guwahati to Silchar Division. While undue and unexplained delay in the completion of disciplinary proceedings is undesirable and remains open to judicial scrutiny (Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Anr., (2015) 16 SCC 415), we do not find, on the facts before us, that the delay occasioned here was so inordinate or prejudicial to the applicant as to vitiate the enquiry or the punishment consequently imposed.

In view of the above, we find no merit in the applicant’s challenge to the proceedings as being vitiated by an impermissible second enquiry. The enquiry conducted pursuant to the order dated 16.11.2015, and the consequent punishment order dated 31.12.2019 as confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 29.07.2020, are accordingly held to be legally sustainable.

Accordingly, O.A. stands dismissed.

Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.