S. Venkatachalam vs Union Of India & Ors.

In the instant OA, the applicant isseeking the following relief:

Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:

The Applicant joined the service of the Divisional Accounts Office as Clerk Grade-II on 13.07.1977. He was subsequently promoted as Clerk Grade-I and thereafter as Accounts Assistant in the Office of the 5th Respondent. The Applicant rendered an unblemished service of 23 years in the Office of the 5th Respondent. The 5th Respondent issued a charge sheet, dated 11.02.2000, based on a Police complaint lodged against the Applicant. On 19.02.2000, the Applicant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in connection with the said charges under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997. The fact of his arrest and remand was immediately communicated by the police authorities. The Applicant was granted bail on 20.04.2000. Meanwhile, the Respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant. However, the disciplinary authority did not duly communicate the proceedings to the Applicant in the manner prescribed under the applicable service rules. The Applicant submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 29.06.2000, following which he was placed under suspension. The Applicant submitted a representation requesting payment of subsistence allowance from the date of suspension in terms of Rule 5(2)(a) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, as no subsistence allowance had been paid to him from the date of suspension. The Applicant's suspension was revoked on 21.11.2005 vide letter No. P.227/MDU/Admn/DAR/SV/MAJ/Aug.2003, and he was reinstated in service on 01.12.2005. Thereafter, the Applicant submitted a representation dated 07.12.2005 claiming full back wages for the period of suspension, particularly in view of the unconditional revocation of the suspension. Instead of considering the said representation, the Respondents issued a letter dated 09.12.2005 concerning the handing over of SF-5 and change of the Inquiry Officer. The Applicant thereafter submitted further representations dated 17.01.2006, 08.02.2006 and 24.09.2011. However, no response was received to any of these representations. Consequently, the Applicant submitted another representation dated 26.07.2019 seeking payment of full back wages, Productivity Linked Bonus and other consequential benefits for the period commencing from the date of suspension until the date of his wrongful termination. The 5th Respondent, by letter dated 14.08.2019, stated that the grievances raised by the Applicant were the subject matter of O.A. No. 895 of 2019. The Applicant submits that the said response was irrelevant to the claims raised in his representation. The Applicant thereafter submitted further representations dated 07.02.2020 and 15.02.2020. As the Respondents failed to consider and redress his grievances, the Applicant is constrained to file the present Original Application.

The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant seeks consideration of his representations dated 07.02.2020 and 15.02.2020 and appropriate disciplinary action against the competent authorities and other officials involved in the disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant. It is submitted that, throughout the disciplinary proceedings and until the filing of the present Original Application, the said authorities failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice and violated the applicable Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, Railway Board instructions and circulars. Such violations, according to the Applicant, commenced from the date of his suspension, i.e., 19.02.2000, and continued thereafter.

The learned counsel further submits that the Applicant was acquitted in all the criminal cases relating to the TNPID proceedings and the cheque cases before the competent Criminal Courts. The order of acquittal in the TNPID proceedings was passed on 28.03.2017. Immediately thereafter, the Applicant submitted a representation dated 14.12.2018 requesting revocation of the charges framed against him in the light of his acquittal. However, by communication dated 26.02.2019, the Applicant was informed that the charges in the departmental proceedings were distinct from those in the criminal case and, therefore, his acquittal in the criminal proceedings could not, by itself, afford him any relief in the disciplinary proceedings.

The learned counsel further submits that, when a delinquent employee is in judicial custody, the suspension order and the orders relating to payment of subsistence allowance are required to be duly communicated and served through the appropriate prison authorities. In the present case, the requisite orders were not served upon the Applicant while he was in custody, nor was subsistence allowance paid to him from the date of suspension. The failure of the competent authorities to follow the prescribed procedure constitutes, according to the Applicant, a violation of the applicable disciplinary rules, Railway Board circulars and the principles of natural justice.

It is further submitted that, where the criminal proceedings involve grave charges and complicated questions of law and fact, it may be appropriate, depending upon the nature of the offence and the evidence collected during investigation, to keep the departmental proceedings pending until the conclusion of the criminal case. However, where the criminal proceedings are delayed or do not proceed expeditiously, the departmental proceedings may be resumed and concluded at the earliest. In the present case, since the Applicant was ultimately acquitted in the criminal proceedings, the Applicant contends that the consequential benefits and entitlements lost by him during the prolonged proceedings ought to have been duly considered and restored in accordance with law.

The learned counsel finally submits that the concerned authorities, in the Applicant's case, failed to discharge their duties in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures and, according to the Applicant, committed serious procedural irregularities in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, including improper maintenance and handling of official records and failure to comply with the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the prolonged disciplinary proceedings and the alleged violations of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and Railway Board instructions have caused the Applicant severe and continuing prejudice, including financial and other hardship, from the date of suspension on 19.02.2000.

In view of the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the Applicant prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to consider the representations dated 07.02.2020 and 15.02.2020, direct the competent authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with the applicable rules, and grant the reliefs sought for in the present Original Application.

Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents, placing reliance upon the reply statement, submitted that, though the relief sought by the Applicant is ostensibly for a direction to the Respondents to dispose of his representations dated 07.02.2020 and 15.02.2020, in substance, the Applicant seeks a direction to initiate appropriate Disciplinary Action Rules (DAR) proceedings against the competent authorities who were involved in his DAR case, on the basis of grounds which are wholly imaginary and misconceived. It was contended that such a prayer cannot be entertained by this Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Applicant had originally sought, as a second relief, a direction to the Respondents to pay him a sum of Rs.50 Crores towards compensation. However, the said relief was subsequently withdrawn by the Applicant by filing an affidavit, and he confined his prayer to the first relief alone. According to the learned Senior Counsel, such a course of action is not permissible under the procedure governing the proceedings before this Tribunal.

The learned Senior Counsel also contended that the Original Application is liable to be dismissed summarily on the ground that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law, as the reliefs sought by the Applicant do not fall within the ambit of “service matters” as defined under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 17.09.2021 in Uflex Limited v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, in Civil Appeal Nos. 4862–4863 of 2021, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 165. He particularly referred to paragraphs 52 to 54 of the said judgment, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the imposition of costs as a measure to curb frivolous litigation, having regard to the conduct of the parties. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel prayed that the Original Application, being frivolous and vexatious, be dismissed with appropriate orders as to costs, in the interest of justice.

We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents and perused the pleadings and materials placed on record.

The principal objection raised by the Respondents is that, although the Applicant has couched his prayer as one seeking disposal of his representations dated 07.02.2020 and 15.02.2020, the substance of the relief sought is to compel the Respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the authorities who were connected with his DAR proceedings. It is, therefore, contended that such a relief cannot be granted by this Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

We find considerable force in the submission of the Respondents that this Tribunal cannot issue a direction to the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against any particular person or to take action in a particular manner. The power to initiate disciplinary proceedings, wherever warranted, lies within the domain of the competent disciplinary authority and is required to be exercised in accordance with the applicable service rules and on the basis of the materials available before it. The Tribunal, while exercising its power of judicial review, cannot assume the role of the competent disciplinary authority or substitute its own decision for that of the authority vested with such power.

In the present case, the substantive relief sought by the Applicant is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction vested in this Tribunal. Indeed, the Registry ought not to have numbered the Original Application in the first instance, as the reliefs sought therein are not maintainable before this Tribunal. Be that as it may, the Original Application is liable to be rejected, as the reliefs sought by the Applicant do not fall within the ambit of “service matters” as defined under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

In the result, the Original Application is rejected/dismissed summarily as not maintainable. Although the conduct of the Applicant in instituting the present proceedings may warrant the imposition of exemplary costs, we refrain from doing so and, taking a lenient view of the matter, leave the parties to bear their own costs