Union of India vs Nagalakshmi

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in Original Application No. 278/2013.

The respondent-Smt. Nagalakshmi who is an employee under the 1st petitioner has been censured by her employer, as against which an application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore. After considering the application and the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, the Central Administrative Tribunal has passed the following order as found in paragraphs 3 and 4 at page 2 on 26.11.2013:

"3. It is also found that others along with the applicant in the said issue had been granted the benefit without taking into account the effect of such censure. Therefore, on pari materia consideration also the applicant is entitled to the same benefit. It is also pointed out that the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in A.N. Mohanan Vs. Union of India & Ors. in O.A. No. 203/2002 decided on 18.06.2004, also held in the same fashion. We are also in respectful agreement with them.

But having said so, once a punishment order is issued it must have an effect. Otherwise, all the consequences there will be rendered futile. Therefore, the DOPT is directed to recast the rule position so that specifications must be available with regard to the time frame within which the punishment must have a value and any effect however slightest it may be is to be universally acknowledged. A copy of the order shall be addressed to the DOPT in this regard. The benefits accruable to the applicant may be made available to the applicant within two months next. OA is allowed to the extent as above".

It is this order called in question on various grounds.

We have perused the same. We do not understand as to how the petitioners are really aggrieved by the said order what is held by the Tribunal is that in view of similarly placed employees being censured and monetary benefits being extended to them the same will have to be imposed on Smt. Nagalakshmi who had approached them Admittedly, censure is a minor penalty and the Tribunal has made it clear that minor penalty i.e. censure will not come in the way of monetary benefits that is to be extended to her.

An observation has been made that Department is expected to recast the rule position so that specifications must be available with regard to the time frame within which the punishment must have a value and any effect however slightest it may be, is to be universally acknowledged.

On going through the order, we find that the petitioners are actually aggrieved by this observation made by the Tribunal. As censure is a minor penalty and it will not take away the monetary benefits that is to be extended to such reprimanded employee, certain directions have been given to recast the rule position. The order in question is a well reasoned order explaining the effect of censure which is a minor penalty. Anyhow it is for the department to look into as to whether rule position in this regard requires a holistic change.

We do not find any reasons to interfere with a well considered order passed by the Tribunal. Present writ petition is devoid of merits and hence, the petition is dismissed.

There is no order as to costs.