SRI ANANDKUMAR RANGREZ S/O SRI SADASHIVA RAO vs UNION OF INDIA

This writ petition is directed against the order dated

22.12.2016 in O.A.No.170/00320/2016 passed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (''CAT'' for

short), dismissing the said application.

We have heard Shri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for

the petitioner and Shri A. Venkat Sathyanarayana, learned

Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 and perused the

records.

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be

referred to as per their status in the application filed before

the CAT.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are, the

respondent, Department of Telecommunications (''DOT'' for

short) initiated certain disciplinary proceedings on a charge

that the applicant had countersigned certain bills presented

by a private Contractor in respect of certain works, which

were not actually carried out, resulting in a loss of Rs. 31

Lakhs to the DOT. The Inquiry Officer, held the charges as

''not proved''. The disciplinary authority accepted the said

finding. However, the Central Vigilance Commission (''CVC''

for short) disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer

and advised for imposition of penalty upon the applicant.

The applicant was notified of the advise tendered by the

CVC. The applicant submitted his representation on

23.07.2011. After considering the same, the disciplinary

authority imposed a punishment of reduction to a lower

stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years

with cumulative effect. The said order was challenged

before the CAT in the first round of litigation. The CAT, vide

it''s order dated 24.01.2014 in O.A.No.142/2013, set aside

the order passed by the disciplinary authority on the ground

that the same was not a speaking order and remanded the

matter for fresh consideration. The relevant portion of the

said order reads as follows:-

"14. We do not find in the impugned order (Annexure A14) a logical progression from para 2 to para 3. A decision in para 2 to accept the finding of the IO has suddenly mutated in para 3 into one to accept the advice of the CVC. There is nothing to show why the DA made this sudden volte face. The respondents have not given any reasons why they accepted the views of CVC having in the first place accepted the Inquiry Officer''s contention that the charges against applicant were not proved. The reply statement is also silent on this point. The Disciplinary Authority is free to accept or decline the advice of the CVC. However, the DA is expected to put in writing his reasons for his decision, however, brief. In the absence of any such reasoning in the impugned order we are forced to come to the conclusion that the advice of the CVC was indeed accepted in a mechanical manner by the DA. The impugned order is not a speaking order. We therefore, set aside the impugned order Annexure A14 and remand the case to the Disciplinary Authority for necessary action in the light of the rules and instructions on the subject and based on the merits of the case. We once again make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case against the applicant.

The OA is disposed of in the above terms. There is no order as to costs."

(Emphasis Supplied)

After the remand, the Government of India, passed an

order dated 20.08.2014 to continue the proceedings. A

copy of the advise tendered by the UPSC., was also made

available to the applicant inviting his response, if any. The

applicant submitted a detailed representation dated

25.10.2014 as per Annexure - A12. After considering the

same and other material on record, the disciplinary

authority vide order dated 15.04.2015, again imposed the

penalty of reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay

for a period of three years with cumulative effect.

The applicant challenged the said order dated

15.04.2015, in the present proceedings before the CAT,

principally on the ground that, the material on which the

disciplinary authority recorded his reasons for disagreement

in paragraph No.3 of his order, had not come into existence

after the earlier punishment order dated 31.07.2012.

The CAT, on consideration of the material on record,

categorically held that, the applicant had misinterpreted it''s

earlier order. The CAT, has precisely recorded it''s finding as

follows:-

"13. Similarly we cannot accept the applicant''s stand that Annexure A13 was issued in a mechanical manner and that the DA was influenced by the advice of the UPSC and the CVC and did not take an independent decision. We made it very clear in our order dated 24.01.2014 that the "disciplinary authority is free to accept or decline the advice of CVC". This is not the first case where the DA has changed his mind after studying the opinion of the CVC or UPSC; nor will it be the last. The DA is fully within his rights to accept the advice of the authority concerned. However he is expected to state why he accepted such advice. Whereas the penalty order dated 27/31.07.2012 was all too brief, Annexure A13 is a detailed order that has examined relevant aspects of the case. As far as the opinion of GEQD is concerned the respondents have pointed out that the IO did not take the cognizance of GEQD opinion during the inquiry. The respondents also note that it is a matter of record that a sum of Rs.17 lakhs was recovered from the contractor; this reinforces the claim that such excess payment was made in the first place. We are not impressed by the applicant''s stand that the responsibility for committing any irregularity rested with field officers alone and that he as counter-signing authority was not answerable for any lapse; to our mind this amounts to nothing less than evading responsibility."

(Emphasis Supplied)

Further, considering the gravity of the offence, the CAT did

not interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed.

In substance, the argument of the petitioner is that,

there was no fresh material before the disciplinary authority

after the previous punishment order dated 31.07.2012, to

record his dis-agreement.

We have carefully perused the first punishment order

dated 31.07.2012, the order passed by the CAT, setting

aside the first punishment order, the second punishment

order dated 20.08.2014, impugned before the CAT and the

order passed by the CAT thereon dated 22.12.2016,

impugned in this writ petition.

In our considered view:

* the CAT, has rightly held that the petitioner has misconstrued its first punishment order;

* the second punishment order dated 15.04.2015, is a well reasoned order, having been passed after taking into consideration all the relevant material on record including the advise tendered by the UPSC., and the CVC; and

* CAT was right in not interfering with the quantum of punishment, keeping in view, the gravity of the charge.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are at one

with the decision arrived at by the CAT.

Resultantly, this writ petition must fail and is

accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

No costs.