Union of India (UOI) vs Shri Madan Lal

Madan B. Lokur, J.

Caveat No. 128/2008

Since learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent, caveat stands disposed of.

WP (C) No. 8448/2008 & CM No. 16261/2008 (Stay)

The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 7th July, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 2634/2006.

A charge sheet was issued to the Respondent on 17th February, 1990 in which it was alleged that he had exhibited lack of integrity and that he levelled false allegations against his seniors, which the Respondent could not prove before the staff court of inquiry. It appears that an identical charge was also made against another person by the name of Bir Singh.

It appears that Bir Singh was the President of the Staff Union and the Respondent was the General Secretary of the Staff Union.

Departmental enquiries were held against both, the Respondent as well as Bir Singh, and both were found guilty of the charge made against them. The punishment awarded to Bir Singh was stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect but the punishment awarded to the Respondent was reduction to the starting rate of time scale of pay. Aggrieved against the discriminatory punishment awarded to him, the Respondent challenged the award of punishment by filing an Original Application before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted in its order dated 8th November, 1995 in OA No. 185/1991 that the only distinction sought to be made was that Bir Singh was unable to read or write English and that he was forced by the Respondent to send certain letters. The Tribunal noted that this fact has influenced the opinion of the Enquiry Officer as well as the other departmental authorities, but the fact was not relevant since it had not come on record in the enquiry. Accordingly, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the appellate authority to re-consider the award of punishment to the Respondent in accordance with law ignoring the opinion of the Enquiry Officer in this regard.

In compliance with the order passed by the Tribunal, the matter was taken up by the appellate authority who passed an order dated 27th February, 1996 re-affirming the same view on the same ground. The decision of imposition of the same penalty was challenged by the Respondent by filing a second Original Application before the Tribunal being OA No. 1636/1996 which was dismissed on 22nd February, 2000. Against the decision of the Tribunal in the second OA, the Respondent preferred a writ petition in this Court being WP (C) No. 3648/2001 which came to be decided on 26th February, 2002. This Court noted the fact that Bir Singh did not know English could not have been taken into consideration in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the first OA which was not challenged by anybody.

This Court was of the view that the appellate authority had mis-directed himself in law by taking this fact into consideration and, therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal in the second OA was set aside and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

The appellate authority then passed an order dated 26th June, 2002 in compliance with the orders passed by this Court. With regard to the findings arrived at by the Tribunal as well as by this Court in regard to Bir Singh's knowledge of English, the appellate authority took this into consideration and stated as follows:

Whereas the matter has been examined afresh as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court for awarding of similar punishment as awarded in the case of Sh. Bir Singh, Tractor Driver, Sh. Bir Singh was made to sign letters against his will by Sh. Madan Lal knowing that Sh. Bir Singh cannot read or write English. As the gravity of involvement of both the delinquents was not the same, similar punishment cannot be given to both the delinquents.

A reading of the above shows that the appellate authority once again took into consideration the alleged fact that Bir Singh could not read or write English and on this basis concluded that since the gravity of involvement of the Respondent as well as Bir Singh is not the same, a similar punishment could not be awarded to both of them.

The order passed by the appellate authority was the subject matter of a miscellaneous application filed by the Respondent in this Court which declined to entertain it on the ground that the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the matter. Consequently, the Respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application No. 2634/2006, which came to be allowed by the impugned order.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted before us that even though the charges in respect of the Respondent as well as Bir Singh were the same, the Respondent deserved a greater punishment because of his greater involvement. The greater involvement is said to be justified once again by resorting to the allegation that Bir Singh did not know how to read or write English and that the Respondent forced him to send letters in English, a language he allegedly did not know. This assertion is no longer valid in view of the order passed by the Tribunal in the first OA as well as the view expressed by this Court in its order dated 26th February, 2002.

Once this allegation is taken out of consideration, there is no distinction between the case of the Respondent and the case of Bir Singh and, therefore, they should be treated equally. We agree with this opinion of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that ordinarily the matter should have been remitted back to the appellate authority for a re-consideration, but since the issue has been pending since 1990 and the appellate authority has been given as many as two opportunities to re-consider its decision and it has refused to do so, despite the observations of the Tribunal and the findings of this Court, it would not be appropriate on the facts of the case to remit the matter back to the appellate authority for re-consideration.

We do not find any reason to disagree with the view expressed by the Tribunal. A litigant cannot be compelled to go on litigating merely because an officer of the Petitioner refuses to abide by the orders passed either by the Tribunal or by this Court. It is high time that this matter is given a quite burial since it is almost 18 years old and the only issue that is pending is regarding the quantum of punishment awarded to the Respondent.

For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.

Since the Respondent has been made to unnecessarily litigate over and over again because of the recalcitrant attitude of the Petitioner, we impose costs of Rs. 10,000/-, which should be deposited in the Registry of this Court by way of a cheque drawn in favour of the Registrar General within two weeks from today. The amount be then handed over to the Respondent.

List the matter for compliance on 9th January, 2009.

Dasti.