AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R By Mallika Arya, AM.-
The applicant is challenging the order dated 25.05.2012 (Annexure A-
passed by the Disciplinary Authority thereby imposing the penalty of withholding of one increment with non-cumulative effect. He is also aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 13.03.2013 (Annexure A-2) and order dated 15.05.2014 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Revisionary Authority confirming the said penalty.
Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was served a chargesheet on 01.09.2010 under Rule 12 of EPF Staff (CC & A) Rules, 1071, whereby there are allegations regarding violation of certain day to day work of the applicant. After receiving the chargesheet, the applicant immediately submitted an application on 16.09.2010 asking for the the relevant documents for filing an effective reply. The applicant submits that though the respondents vide communication dated 22.07.2011 & 21.09.2011 (Annexure A-6) have supplied certain documents but the relevant documents as requested by the applicant were not supplied to him. The applicant again requested for grant of complete documents. However, the same were not provided to him. In absence of the requested documents, the applicant submitted his detailed reply to the chargesheet denying all the allegations levelled against him. However, the Disciplinary Authority, without holding a regular departmental enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 25.05.2012 (Annexure A-1), whereby a minor punishment of withholding one future increment without non-cumulative effect has been inflicted on the applicant. The applicant preferred an appeal (Annexure A-10). He had also received certain documents after filing of the appeal and Central Administrative Tribunalthe same were brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority by way of additional submissions. However, without considering the averments made in the appeal and the additional documents submitted by the applicant, the Appellate Authority affirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide the order dated 13.03.2013 (Annexure A-2). Similarly, the revision petition filed by the applicant has also been mechanically rejected by the Revisionary Authority vide order dated 15.05.2014 (Annexure A-3).
The applicant submits that similar charges were also levelled against Shri Suresh Kumar Chouhan, who was then working as Section Supervisor in the same Organization as the applicant. The respondents gave him a chargesheet under Rule 10 of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971 and later on given him a clean chit. No such enquiry was conducted by the Disciplinary Authority against him. At the time when the incident took place, the applicant was just a monitoring authority while Shri Suresh Kumar Chouhan, Section Supervisor was the executing authority and he was solely responsible for the incident and irregularities as alleged in the chargesheet have been committed by him. Moreover, the charges alleged in the chargesheet relate to the period April 2001 to June 2006 whereas the applicant was posted in Regional Office Bhopal from August 2004 to June Central Administrative Tribunal2006.
The applicant is a Group-A officer. Before issuing chargesheet to Group ‘A’ officer, it is mandatory to take the advice of the CVC in respect of Group ‘A’ officers. No such advice was ever taken by the respondents. Further, the Vigilance Department had recommended for initiating departmental enquiry against Shri Xavier Zangra, SSA, Shri Vishnu Ghumnar, SS, Shri R.K. Vaidya, SS, Shri Suresh Chouhan, SS, Shri S.K. Vyas, SS, Shri A.K. Jain, AAO & Shri R.S. Thakur, AAO. However, except Shri Suresh Chouhan (SS) punishment has been inflicted on all the officers including the applicant.
In their reply, the respondents have stated that the request of the applicant for supply of certain documents was considered and all the necessary documents were provided to him vide letters dated 21.09.2011, 22.07.2011 and 20.12.2011 (Annexure R-1 collectively). Further documents, as demanded by the applicant, were not found to be relevant and hence those have not been supplied to him. Reply of the applicant to the chargesheet was examined and the Disciplinary Authority while considering the reply of the applicant in detail has imposed the penalty on him. The Appellate Authority and the Revisionary Authority had considered the Central Administrative Tribunalmatter in detail and have rejected the appeal and the revision petition preferred by the applicant.
The applicant was issued a chargesheet under Rule 12 of EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971 for minor penalty. It is not necessary to hold a regular departmental enquiry in case where the chargesheet is issued under Rule 12 of said rules. The applicant submitted additional documents in his defence much after the appeal has been rejected. Thus there was no occasion for the Appellate Authority to dwell upon the additional documents. Arising out of the same incident, two other officials viz; Shri Vishnu Ghumnar and Shri S.K. Vyas, were also proceeded against along with Shri Suresh Chouhan by the Disciplinary Authority on charges of for minor penalty. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a minor penalty of withholding of one future increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 24.01.2011 upon Shri Vishnu Ghumnar. Shri S.K. Vyas was inflicted with a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect without adversely effecting the pension vide order dated 10.08.2010. Thus, the contention of the applicant that only he has been punished is not tenable.
The advice of the CVC is taken in those cases where vigilance angle is involved. Since in the case of the applicant, no vigilance angle was found, hence CVC was not consulted.
The applicant has also referred to the case of Smt. Gazala Ali Khan and has stated that she was charge-sheeted after 12 years of the incident. Later on only the penalty of censure was imposed on her. However, the applicant was also involved in that case for which Smt. Gazala Ali Khan was charge-sheeted. But the Disciplinary Authority took a lenient view and decided not to proceed against the applicant as he had already been charged for a similar misconduct.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record. We have also gone through the rejoinder as well as additional reply filed by the respective parties.
The matter was reserved for orders on 21.08.2026 and the parties were given 15 days’ time to file their written submissions. However, only the respondents have filed their written submissions.
The Employees' Provident Fund Staff (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971, which are pari materia to CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 draw a clear distinction between the procedure applicable to major penalties and that applicable to minor penalties. Rule 10 deals with the procedure for imposing major penalties. Sub-rule (1) thereof specifically provides that no order imposing any of the major penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 7 shall be made except after an enquiry is held, as far as may be, in the manner prescribed under the said Rule. On the other hand, Rule 12 deals with the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Rule 12(i) provides that no order imposing a penalty specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 7 shall be made except after giving the employee a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the proposal. Clause (b) of Rule 12(i) further provides for holding an enquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 10 in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such enquiry is necessary. Thus, the scheme of the Rules makes it abundantly clear that a regular departmental enquiry is a mandatory statutory requirement where a major penalty is proposed, whereas, in proceedings for imposition of a minor penalty under Rule 12, an Central Administrative Tribunalenquiry is not invariably mandatory. The mere fact that a charge-sheet has been issued under Rule 12, therefore, this cannot lead to a conclusion that the disciplinary authority is bound in every case to conduct a full-fledged regular departmental enquiry. The applicant was issued a chargesheet under Rule 12 of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971. Thereafter the penalty has been imposed as provided under Rule (i) to (iv) of Rule 7 of the 1971 Rules. Hence, the rule position does not warrant initiation of a regular departmental enquiry in this case. It is also pertinent to note that while submitting his reply to the chargesheet on 26.12.2011 (Annexure A-9), the applicant has not demanded for conduct of a full-fledged enquiry into the matter.
The next question is whether the disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated merely because certain documents requested by the applicant were not supplied. In the case of Chandrama Tewari vs. Union of India, (1987) Supp 1 SCC 518, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, “it is not necessary that every document must be supplied to the delinquent employee. The obligation extends to documents which are material and relevant to the charges. If a document is neither relevant nor relied upon for establishing the charges, non-supply thereof would not ordinarily constitute violation of natural justice. The enquiry would be vitiated where non-supply of a material and relevant document, when demanded, has caused prejudice to the delinquent employee.”
In the present case, the applicant was given a reasonable opportunity to file his reply to the chargesheet dated 01.09.2010. It is evident from the record that in response to his application dated 16.09.2010 (Annexure A-5), the respondents vide the letter dated 21.09.2011 (Annexure R-1) have provided him all the relevant documents as demanded by the applicant. The applicant has referred to non-supply of certain documents. However, the mere assertion that documents were not supplied cannot, in the absence of specific particulars, cannot lead to a conclusion that the entire disciplinary proceedings stands vitiated. The applicant was required to demonstrate as to whether those documents were relied upon by the disciplinary authority and whether the documents were material and relevant to the charges levelled and further what prejudice was actually caused to him by their non-supply. If the documents in question were neither relied upon against the applicant nor used for recording a finding of guilt, their non-supply would not, by itself, constitute a violation of natural justice. We also notice that there is no reference by the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the documents not supplied to the applicant in the impugned order dated 25.05.2012 (Annexure A-1).
The next question is whether the advice/first-stage advice of the Central Vigilance Commission is mandatory before issuance of a charge-sheet to a Group ‘A’ officer even when the allegations are purely administrative/non-vigilance in nature and no vigilance angle, corruption or improper motive is involved. The CVC procedure treats Group ‘A’ category as determining the category of officers in respect of whom the Commission's advice is required where the case otherwise falls within the vigilance jurisdiction of the Commission. In the present matter, the allegations contained in the chargesheet relate to procedural irregularities, failure to follow departmental instructions and supervisory lapses. There is no allegation of acceptance of illegal gratification, pecuniary benefit, abuse of official position for an improper purpose, dishonest intention, favouritism, corruption or any other circumstance constituting a vigilance angle. In any case, the Disciplinary Authority derives it’s power to initiate disciplinary proceedings from the administration cannot be expanded beyond their express scope so as to create an absolute requirement of CVC consultation in every disciplinary proceeding against a Group ‘A’ officer. The record further reveals that all the other officers, including the applicant, who were involved in the same incidence have been punished by the respondents. Thus, the contention of the applicant that proceedings were initiated against him with personal vendetta is not sustainable.
Considering the overall totality of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned punishment orders passed by the authorities. The Original Application, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.