AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):
Since both the matters are interconnected to each other, though we have heard the matter one after the other, this common order is passed which will govern in all the two cases.
Sh. Mrutyunjaya Das Son of Surendranath Das of Village-Baro, Radha Nagar, Po. Baro, Via-Tihidi, District. Bhadrak, Odisha has filed Original Application No. 421 of 2022 under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking direction to the Respondents to appoint him as Chowkidar Safaiwala (Group-D) presently known as MTS in the Office of Res.No.3 with effect from the date Shri Prasanna Kumar Behera was appointed and to pass any other order/orders as would be deemed just and proper; INTER ALIA, stating that on 17.07.2009, Res.No.3 issued notice inviting application for selection to Gr. D under OBC category. The minimum and maximum age limit of the candidate was fixed as 18 to 33 years and that the maximum age limit was relaxable upto three years for OBC candidate. Accordingly, all the candidates applied pursuant to Central Administrative Tribunalthe notice dated 17.07.2009 including the present Applicant and one Shri Prasanna Kumar Behera had appeared at the interview conducted by the Respondent-Department on 09.04.2010. On the recommendation of the Selection Committee, Shri Prasanna Kumar Behera was selected to the post of Gr.D/MTS vide order dated 21.05.2010 and accordingly, he joined the post on 21.05.2010. On receipt of complaints that Shri Behera whose date of birth being 05.05.1976, having crossed the upper age limit, ought not to have been appointed, to the post in question, the selection and appointment of Shri Behera was cancelled and resultantly he was disengaged from service with effect from 31.05.2011. After his disengagement, the applicant, Sri Mrutyunjaya Das [in OA 421/2022], submitted representation praying for appointment to the post in question which request was turned down vide letter dated 28.06.2011.
Thereafter, Sri Das filed OA No. 618/2011 before this Bench praying to quash the letter of rejection dated 28.06.2011 and direct the Respondents to appoint him to the post of Gr. D in place of Shri Behera. Shri Prasanna Kumar Behera had also filed OA No. 552 of 2011 challenging his order of termination dated 31.05.2011 and 28.06.2011 and hold that he is deemed to have been continuing in Central Administrative Tribunalservice and entitled to all consequential service and financial benefits with effect from 01.06.2011. Both the OAs were heard and disposed of by this Bench in a common order dated 11th January, 2016. The operative part of the order/direction of this Bench in OA No. 552/2011 filed by Shri P.K.Behera reads as under:
“11.In view of this, we quash the impugned order dated 31.05.2011 [A/11] whereby appointment of the applicant to the post of Chowkidar-Cum-Safaiwala [MTS] has been cancelled and direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in his post forthwith. However, nothing would prevent the respondent-authorities to proceed with the matter as deemed fit and proper, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the applicant to put up his grievance before taking any action adversary to his interest which is in our considered view, would meet the ends of justice. Ordered accordingly.”
In OA No. 618/2011 this Bench held as under:
“21.Since in OA No. 552 of 2011, we have quashed the impugned order dated 31.05.2011 [A/11] whereby appointment of the applicant to the post of Chowkidar-Cum-Safaiwala [MTS] has been cancelled and directed the respondent-department to reinstate the applicant in his post forthwith with a further direction that nothing would prevent the respondent-authorities to proceed with the matter as deemed fit and proper, only after affording a reasonable opportunity to the applicant to put up his grievance before taking any action adverse to applicant’s interest, in our considered opinion, any observation or Central Administrative Tribunaldirection at this juncture by us in the present OA would certainly impinge upon our own direction to OA No. 552/2011. In view of this, we hold that at this stage, it is too premature to adjudicate the dispute which centers round the OA No. 618/2011.
22.In the result, while we allow OA No. 552/2011 in part, we dismiss OA No. 618/2011 by consequence. No costs.”
The aforesaid orders of this Bench was also upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in common order dated 19.07.2017 in WP Nos. 8787, 4447, 3473 and 3474 of 2016.
Whereupon, Sri M.Das filed OA No. 342 of 2018 seeking direction to the respondents to appointment him to the post or to conclude the entire issue immediately in terms of the direction of this Bench in common order dated 11.01.2016 in OA Nos. 552 and 618 of 2011. This Bench vide order dated 22.01.2019 disposed of the OA No. 342 of 2018 with direction to the Respondents to complete the proceeding initiated against Shri P.K.Behera within a period of four months.
Consequently, Respondent-Department issued Memo dated 02.09.2019 to Shri P.K.Behera, which Memo he has again challenged in OA No. 598 of 2019. Simultaneously, MA No. 472 of 2019 arising out of OA No. 342 of 2018 was also filed by Sri M.Das. Both the OA as Central Administrative Tribunalwell as MA were heard analogously and vide common order dated 09.07.2021 this Bench dismissed the OA No. 598 of 2019 filed by Shri P.K.Behera and disposed of MA No. 472 of 2019 filed by Sri M.Das with direction to comply with the order of this Bench dated 22.01.2019 in OA No. 342 of 2018.
Whereupon, the Respondent-Department vide order dated 10.11.2021, in exercise of power conferred under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 disengaged Shri P.K.Behera from the post of MTS, Office of the LEO ( C), Paradip w.e.f. 10.11.2021 (AN). Hence, by filing representation dated 23.12.2021, Shri M.Das, sought appointment to the post of MTS consequent upon disengagement of Shri P.K.Behera.
Alleging inaction of the Respondents in providing appointment in place of Shri P.K.Behera to the post of MTS in the office of LEO (C), Paradip, Shri M.Das, filed OA No. 421 of 2022 with prayer mentioned above and Shri P.K.Behera filed OA No. 732 of 2022 assailing and challenging his order of disengagement dated 10th November, 2021 seeking the relief as under:
“(A)to quash the orders of the Respondent No.3 vide Memo No. 97 (01)/2017-C.I dated 10th November, 2021 of Respondent No.3 (as per Annexure A/21) and letter No. 71 (11)/2017-AI dated 10.10.2022 (as per Central Administrative Tribunal Annexure A/25) for being illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of the provision of Art. 14 and 16 of the constitution of India as there is no misconduct or misdemeanor committed by the Applicant.
(B)To direct and order that the appointment of the applicant though was based on a notification erroneously issued prescribing the maximum age limit as 33 years instead of 25 years, was not illegal and irregular as the applicant complies with all the eligibility condition of his age for appointment as per Law as on the crucial date of the recruitment year as submitted in Para 5.11 and para 5.15 above;
( C) to order and direct that the applicant be reinstated in his present post of MTS immediately with all consequential pay and other service benefits and the cost of litigation be aid to the applicant by the respondents.”
The wholesome case of Sri M.Das is that since as per the Rules the upper age limit for appointment to MTS was 18 to 25 years and the DoB of Shri P.K.Behera being 05.05.1976, the authority ought not to have considered Sri Behera’s candidature for the post in question since he had crossed the upper age limit by the time notification was issued inviting application for the post. Therefore, Sri Behera’s appointment was rightly cancelled disengaging him from his post and, he [Sri M.Das] being the next available candidate for the post, should have been appointed to the said post but for the reasons best known the respondents sat over the matter which is Central Administrative Tribunal highly illegal and arbitrary.
Respondents filed their counter in which it is stated that after the disengagement of Sri P.K.Behera, Sri M. Das who stood in 3rd position in the selection submitted representation for his appointment to MTS against the said vacancy. The representations were duly considered by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi but rejected since the resultant vacancy of MTS (erstwhile Chowkidar cum Safaiwala) was reported to the Staff Selection Commission for filling up of the same as per the DoP&T OM dated 12.05.2010 and revised RR for the post of MTS notified on 26.03.2011 and the said fact was also intimated to Sri M.Das. Accordingly, the Respondents have prayed for dismissal of this OA.
The wholesome case of Shri P.K.Behera [applicant in OA 732/2022] is that, he was engaged as a part time Sweeper in the office of LEO (C) Paradeep from 2003 to 2004 and had thus completed more than 240 days continuous service. Thereafter, he continued to work as Full Time Chowkidar in the Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Res.No.3) from 2005 onwards through service provider. On 17.07.2009 notification was issued inviting application for the post of Gr. D prescribing the maximum Central Administrative Tribunalage limit as 33 years which was to be relaxed by the competent authority in so far as OBC category candidate is concerned. He belonged to OBC category and, in pursuance of the said notification, made application with required documents. Upon being called, he appeared at the interview held on 09.04.2010 and on the recommendation of the selection committee he was appointed and joined the post in question. But the Respondents disengaged him without following rules, law and the principles of natural justice.
The Respondents filed their counter stating inter alia that Shri Behera was initially engaged from August 2003 to December, 2004 on part time basis for sweeping and cleaning the office of the LEO (Central), Paradeep. Subsequently, he was engaged for performing the duty of security guard cum Chowkidar through outsourcing agency. As per Notification of Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Rehabilitation dated 16.12.1983, the age limit for the post of Safaiwala is 18-25 years. Pursuant to the Advertisement, 59 candidates appeared before the committee for interview on 09.04.2010. On the basis of interview, Shri P.K.Behera, whose date of birth is 05.05.1976 and was over aged by more than 4 years by the date of notification, was selected and appointed to the post of MTS vide order dated 21.05.2010. However, in compliance of the Central Administrative Tribunalorder of this Bench upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Shri Behera was taken back to service. Thereafter a draft charge sheet was issued to him as per CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 vide letter dated 19.03.2018 to which Shri Behera submitted his reply on 09.04.2018. The IO enquired into the matter and submitted its report on 06.08.2019 by completely sidelining the procedural lapses part wrapping it under “Administrative domain” of appointing authority which was not a fact. The Appointing Authority/Disciplinary Authority differed from the report of the IO. Vide Charge Memo dated 02.09.2019 opportunity was given to him to state as to why he shall not be disengaged from service as per the order of this Bench and Hon’ble High Court and he submitted his reply on 20th September, 2019. After considering the matter, Shri Behera was disengaged from service with effect from 10.11.2021. Accordingly, it is stated that there being no flaw or illegality in the action of the Respondents, the OA filed by Shri Behera is also liable to be dismissed.
Heard and perused the records.
According to learned counsel appearing for Sri M.Das in OA No. 421 of 2022 since the appointment of Shri P.K.Behera was found to be illegal and arbitrary and accordingly, he was disengaged from Central Administrative Tribunalservice, he being the next meritorious candidate ought to have been appointed to the said post instead of notifying the same to the SSC. Hence, Sri M.Das, has got a right to be appointed. This submission of the leaned counsel for the applicant was opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents by stating that once a selected candidate joins the post, the selection panel stands exhausted, and any subsequent vacancy created by termination, resignation, or removal must be filled through a fresh selection process rather than from an old merit or waitlist. Hence, Shri Das cannot claim as a matter of right to be appointed when the said vacancy has already been notified to the SSC for selection. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Respondents has prayed for dismissal of the OA filed by Sri M.Das.
Learned Counsel appearing for Sri P.K.Behera in OA No. 732 of 2022 has stated that the respondents themselves notified the age of the candidate between 18 to 33 years. The applicant submitted his application since he was within the said age. Accordingly, he was allowed to appear at the selection and after being found meritorious among all other candidates, he was selected and appointed. Thus, if respondents wrongly notified the age limit there is no reason to allow the innocent citizen like the applicant to suffer for no fault of Central Administrative Tribunaltheir. Further, learned counsel for the applicant has taken us through the earlier order of this Bench which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa to submit that as per the earlier order, the Respondents cannot take away the job of the applicant at their sweet wish and will without following due process of rule and law as is being done in the instant case. Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicant to fortify his arguments has taken us through the points noted in his rejoinder which are summarized as under:
The applicant was in no way responsible about putting the conditions in so far as age is concerned in the requisition sent to the Employment Exchange of inviting application from the intending candidates. Thus, for the mistake of department, if any, committed by the authority, his bread or right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the constitution of India ought not to have been snatched away by the authority without any of his fault, after joining the post pursuant to appointment through a positive act of selection;
After his joining he is conferred with a MTS Central Administrative Tribunalstatus and his condition of service is covered and governed by CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. Thus, any action of termination or dismissal must be preceded with after following due procedure and procedure and in compliance with principles of natural justice as per Rules and law but not followed by the Respondent-Department in strictest sensu;
Respondent-Department have fairly admitted that termination of his service was necessitated and entire action was taken as per the direction of the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi whereas, Rule 14 of CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965 deals with regard to the procedure for imposing major penalties in which exclusively power is vested with none other than the Disciplinary Authority to take decision and terminate the service of an employee. Hence, his termination on the dictation of higher authority is bad in law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Nirmala J. Central Administrative TribunalJhala vs State of Gujarat and Anr, Civil Appeal No. 2668 of 2005 & Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi vs Syndicate Bank, 1992 AIR (SC) 1507;
The order of termination is not sustainable being opposed to the conditions stipulated under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.V. Gopinath vs UOI and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 7763 of 2013 inasmuch as the DA at the first stage to decide there are materials to proceed against an employee, thereafter approve the charge sheet and upon receipt of reply of the employee concerned if it is decided to proceed with the enquiry to appoint IO and PO whereas, in the instant case, no such charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 was issued to the applicant . The so called charge sheet is no charge sheet because the same was issued on 19.03.2018 [Annx.A/13,P.62] in shape of “DRAFT CHARGES UNDER CCS (CONDUCT) RULES, Central Administrative Tribunal1965” calling upon the applicant to explain that too without accompanying with ‘imputation of allegation, List of Documents and List of Witness’;
It is a cardinal principle of natural justice that a person against whom an action is proposed to be taken has to be given an opportunity of hearing. This opportunity has to be an effective opportunity and not a mere pretence. In departmental proceedings where charge sheet is issued and the documents which are proposed to be utilized against that person are not supplied and at the same time employee is called upon to submit reply, it cannot be said that an effective opportunity to defend was provided. The above position is well settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the cases of Kashinath Dikshita vs UOI and Others, AIR 1986 SC 2118; State of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohd. Shariff, AIR 982 SC 937, and High Court of Punjab and Harayana vs Amrik Central Administrative TribunalSingh, 1995 (SUPP.) 1 SCC 321 whereas, in the instant case the applicant has been imposed with the punishment without supplying him copies of documents, and list of witnesses for which the applicant was highly prejudiced to submit his reply or defend his case effectively.
Respondents fairly and candidly admitted that enquiry was conducted under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965 and IO submitted its report on 06.08.2019 holding view in favour of Applicant. The DA different from the report of IO but no such report of IO or the disagreement notice of the A was supplied to him as required under Rules and Law laid down in the cases of Union of India vs Md. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 and Punjab National Bank vs Kunja Bihari Mishra, 1998 (7) SCC 84. Due to non supply of the same, the applicant was highly prejudiced to know details and submit effective reply to the same;
Respondents have admitted that Memo dated Central Administrative Tribunal02.09.2019 was issued to the applicant after the enquiry giving him opportunity to sate as to why he “should not be disengaged from service”. The applicant submitted his reply on 20.09.2019. Thus, the notice was merely an empty formality because, the authority had already made up his mind as to what punishment should be imposed on the applicant which is bad in law;
It is unheard in service jurisprudence that an employee can be imposed with the punishment after due enquiry under Rule 19 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 and, hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed;
The order of punishment is an unreasoned order and thus is liable to be quashed reliance has been placed in the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Union of India and others vs Mohan Lal Kapoor, AIR 1974 SC 87, Raj Kishroe Jha vs State of Bihar and Others (2003) 11 SCC 519, and Assistant Central Administrative TribunalCommissioner, Commercial Tax Department Works Contract and Lease, Kota vs Shukla and brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents has submitted that since the very appointment of Sri P.K.Behera was de hors the Rules, the procedural irregularity as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant is hardly of any matter for quashing of the order of disengagement and accordingly prayed for dismissal of this OA.
Fact remains that Shri P.K.Behera was selected and appointed through a positive act of selection and joined the post on 21.05.2010 and finally was disengaged from service on the ground that instead of the age limit 18-25 it was notified 18-33 thereby Shri Behera was over aged by more than 4 years by the time he was selected and appointed. According to Sri M.Das, in OA No 421 of 2022, he, being the next meritorious candidate in the selection conducted on 09.04.2010, should have been appointed in the vacancy caused due to disengagement of Shri Behera. According to the Respondents, the said vacancy has already been notified to SSC. Now question for consideration, in the given circumstances, remains whether Shri Das has any right to claim appointment Central Administrative Tribunalagainst the said post. We find that similar matter came up before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman vs Bharati College And Ors, in WP (C) No. 8104 of 2025 & CM APPL No. 35430 of 2025 dated 30 May, 2025 and the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition by holding that once a selected candidate joins the post, the selection panel stands exhausted, and any subsequent vacancy created by termination, resignation, or removal must be filled through a fresh selection process rather than from an old merit or waitlist. Relevant portion of the decision is quoted below:
“19.The petitioner, in the present case, is in a position which is substantially similar; two posts of Assistant Professor - Political Science (SC category) were advertised, and two candidates were selected. Both accepted the offer and joined service. The services of respondent No.8 were, however, terminated approximately one year later.
20.The only distinction that can be drawn between the cases considered above and the present case, is that the services of respondent No. 8 were terminated by the College on the ground that she was ineligible for appointment. The consequence is that the petitioner would have been appointed if the ineligibility of respondent No. 8 had been discovered before she was appointed. This situation certainly raises an unfortunate predicament, but does not furnish a ground to distinguish the line of authority cited above. The judgments clearly hold that the waitlist or panel itself is exhausted, at the very latest, upon the appointed candidate joining service. The subsequent termination, like the case of resignation in Dr Shashi Bhushan, gives rise to a vacancy, but the vacancy arises only after the selection process in question was already concluded. These factors sustain, even if the vacancy arises due to the selected candidate's ineligibility, discovered subsequently. The appointment of respondent No. 8 unravelled in the present case within one year, but in another case, the true position may be discovered much Emphasis supplied in future. In such a circumstance, it would cause an anomalous and impractical situation, to require an employer to go back to the waitlist to fill the resulting vacancy.
21.The judgment in Raghunath Prasad Saket also does not help the petitioner's case, as it involved a challenge to the selection of an ineligible candidate, which is substantially different from the facts of the present matter.
22.For the reasons aforesaid, I am unable to come to the aid of the petitioner in the present case. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, along with the pending application.”
In view of the above, we do not find any force or substance on the stand of Shri Das that he accrued any such indefeasible right for appointment against the vacancy subsequent caused due to disengagement of Shri Behera. Hence, the prayer of Shri Mrutyunjaya Das, in OA No 421 of 2022, is found to be against the law and is hereby rejected.
Next we have examined the prayer of Shri P.K.Behera in OA No. 733 of 2022. Admittedly, in the notification issued by the Respondent-Department, age limit of the candidate was provided as 18-33 years relaxable by three years in so far as OBC candidate is concerned. It is not in dispute that Shri Behera is an OBC candidate and got selected through a positive act of selection and joined the post on 21.05.2010. He was abruptly disengaged by the Respondents which he had challenged in earlier OA No. 552 of 2011 and this Bench vide order dated 11th January, 2016 quashed the said order of disengagement by observing as under:
“In view of this, we quash the impugned order dated 31.05.2011 (A/11) whereby appointment of the applicant to the post of Chowkidar-cum-Safaiwala (MTS) has been cancelled and direct the respondents to reinstates the applicant in his post forthwith. However, nothing would prevent the respondent-authorities to proceeded with the matter as deemed fit and proper, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the applicant to put up his grievance before taking any action adversary to his interest, which, in our considered view, would meet the ends of justice.”
The aforesaid order of this Bench was also upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, pursuant to which, Sri Behera was taken back to service. Thereafter, respondents issued Office Memorandum dated 19.03.2018 under caption “Draft Charges against Sri Prasanna Kumar Behera, MTS, as per CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with Rule 3”. Sri Behera submitted his defence. Thereafter, IO was appointed, who upon enquiry submitted its report holding that “in view of the above analysis and documents made available before me, I find that the charges leveled against Shri Prasanna Kumar Behera, MTS vide OM No. 71 (11)/2017-A.1(Voll) dated 19.03.2018 that he committed misconduct or misdemeanor (from para 1 to para 8) in the matter of his appointment as erstwhile Group D (now MTS) are not proved”. Thereafter, in Memorandum dated 2nd September, 2019 the Appointing/Disciplinary Authority Central Administrative Tribunalgiving the factual aspects of the matter, sought defence of Sri Behera as to why he shall not be disengaged from service without supplying him the report of the IO as required under Rules and Law. Sri Behera submitted his defence on 20th September, 2019. Thereafter, vide order dated 10th November, 2021, he was disengaged from service by stating as under:
“WHEREAS vide this office letterNo-71(06)/19-A-1,dated.02.09.2019, which was served on 06.09.2019 in which Sri Prasanna Kumar Behera, MTS, Office of the LEO(C), Paradip was intimated about proposed action to disengage him from service and given an opportunity of making representation on the proposed action and also Sri Prasanna Kumar Behera was given opportunity of personal hearing on 10.11.2021.
AND WHEREAS Sri Prasanna Kumar Behera, MTS has already submitted his representation vide his letter dated 20.09.2019 and 13.07.2021.
AND WHEREAS the said Sri Prasanna Kumar Behera, MTS submitted a written explanation vide his letter dated. 10.11.2021 and was personally heard on 10.11.2021 The written explanation and personal hearing was advanced by Sri Prasanna Kumar Behera, MTS has been duly considered by the undersigned and his oral and written submission are duly heard and perused.
NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Clasification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 the undersigned hereby disengages the service of Sri Prasanna Kumar Behera, MTS, Office of the LEO[C), Paradip we.f. 10.11.2021(Α/Ν).”
After going through the records, we do not have any iota of hesitation to hold that the entire procedure adopted by the Respondent-Central Administrative TribunalDepartment are de hors the Rules and laws because, as per the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 and law laid down in the case of B.V. Gopinath vs UOI and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 7763 of 2013, it is the Appointing/Disciplinary Authority to take decision as to whether there are materials to proceed against the applicant and if decision is in affirmative then approve the charge sheet. In the instant case, the Appointing/Disciplinary Authority proceeded against the Applicant as per order of the higher authority without application of mind as to how far the applicant is responsible for the mistake committed by the authority in the matter giving the age of the candidate between 18-33 instead of 18-25 and how the lapses committed by the authorities would show figure towards the conduct of Sri Behera so as to be proceeded departmentally. Thus, we are of the considered view that the very initiation of the proceedings is against the rules and law laid down in the cases of B.V.Gopinath (supra) as also Nirmala J. Jhala (supra) and Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi (surpa).
Further, it is established that after the earlier order of this Bench, which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court, Sri Behera was reinstated into service and was issued Draft Charges as per CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with Rule 3 that too without Central Administrative Tribunalaccompanying with statement of imputation, documents and list of witness as required under Rules and law laid down in the cases of Kashinath Dikshita (supra) Mohd. Shariff (supra) and Amrik Singh (supra). We also find that departmental proceedings is initiated against an employee under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for breach of any conduct unbecoming on the part of an employee enshrined under CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 but departmental proceedings certainly cannot be initiated under CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as has been done in the instant case. This shows a novel procedure adopted by the Respondents unknown to any Rule or Law.
It is also found that the IO submitted its report holding that the allegation made in the “Draft charge sheet” ‘are not proved’. In terms of the Rules and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Md. Ramzan Khan (supra) and Kunja Bihari Mishra (supra), the Appointing/Disciplinary Authority was under obligation to supply copy of the report to the delinquent employee and, in case of disagreement, the authority concerned is to furnish the detailed reasons as to why he did not agree with the report of the IO and supply the same to the delinquent employee to submit his reply which was not adhered to because the Memorandum dated Central Administrative Tribunal2nd September, 2019 does not say so.
Besides, what should contained in the order of DA is clearly provided in the Rules and unreasoned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law is no more res integra as per decision in the cases of Mohan Lal Kapoor (supra) & Raj Kishroe Jha (supra) which is also lacking in this case.
In view of the above, we find sufficient force on the stand of Sri P.K.Behera for granting the relief claimed in OA No. 732 of 2022. Accordingly, the impugned Memo No. 97 (01)/2017-C.I dated 10th November, 2021 of Respondent No.3 (Annexure A/21) and letter dated 07.10.2022 (A/25) are hereby quashed and, as a consequence, Sri P.K.Behera is deemed to be continuing in service from the date of his disengagement entitling him seniority and notional fixation of pay except back wages. The Respondents are directed to issue the consequential order to the above effect within a period of 45 (forty five) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This is also one of the grounds for dismissal of the OA filed by Sri M.Das.
In the result, OA No. 421 of 2022 is hereby dismissed and OA No. 732 of 2022 is accordingly allowed.
Pending MA, if any, stands disposed of. No costs.