IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.08.2008 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.

MISRA AND THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN W.P.NO. 34184 OF 2003

M.S.Narayanan ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Central Administrative Tribunal ( Madras Bench )rep. by its Registrar High Court Buildings, Chennai 600104. 2. Union of India rep.by the Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002. 3. The Principal Accountant General ( A& E) Office of the principal Accountant General, Chennai 600 018. ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certorarified mandamus calling for the entire records in O.A.No.59 of 1996 dated 7.8.2003 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same and direct the third respondent to sanction all consequential service benefits including the payment of arrears of pay allowances to the petitioner. For Petitioners: Mr.S.Sadasharam For Respondents No.2 & 3:Mr T.Ravikumar ACGSC O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by K.KANNAN,J) Heard Mr.S.Sadasharam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. Summary of facts:
Indian Kanoon http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1529770/

2. The writ petitioner was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.59 of 1996 challenging the order passed by the second respondent viz. the Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General of India dated 24.3.1995. By the impugned order, the order of the disciplinary authority had been confirmed. The punishment meted out to the petitioner was reduction of pay by three stages with effect from the date of passing of the order. It was further ordered that increments of pay would not be earned during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of the said period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. Since the enquiry yielded to a finding of misconduct, the period of suspension from 14.6.1991 to 1.5.1994 was not to be treated as duty for any purpose. The past services, before suspension would not further be forfeited. Enumeration of alleged misconduct by charges: 3. The order was pursuant to the charge memo issued on 20.8.1991. During the time when the petitioner was working as Assistant Accounts Officer, the charge memo listed out 11 charges which reads as follows: Charge (1): That the said Shri M.S.Narayaan while functioning as Assistant Accounts officer held meetings within the office premises without securing specific,prior written permission of the Principa Accountant General on 13.2.91, 05.03.91, 10.4.91, 02.05.91, 14.05.91, 15.05.91, 16.05.91 and 17.05.91 in violation of Rule 3(1)(iii) and Rule 7(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules. Charge (2): That the aid Shri M.S.Narayanan in the meeting held by his unauthorisedly within the office premises on 13.02.91 between 1.45 p.m. and 2.20 p.m. instigated the staff t go on "Work to Rule" thereby infriging Rule 7(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rule. Charge (3): That the said Shri M.S.Narayanan in a meeting held by him unauthorisedly within the office premises on 14.5.91 between1.50 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. issued a call to the Sections in the Accounts Group not to do the pasting of index slips on the records to be sent to Current Record Section. He has tried to prevent the staff from doing their duties, thereby infringing Rule 3(1)(ii),Rule 3(1)(iii) and Rule 7(ii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules. Charge (4): That the said Shri M.S.Narayanan held a metting withint he office building during office hours on 13.06.91 between 12 noon and 12.40 p.m. without securing specific prior, written permission of the principal Accountant general, thereby vilating Rule 3(1)(ii), Rue 3(1)(iii) and Rule 7(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules. Charge (5): That the said shri M.S.Narayanan, has through a letter addressed to the Accounts Officer under his signature on 1306.92 incited the Accounts Officers to protest against Administration. In the same letter he has also urged them not to discharge duties of reporting attendance assigned to them by Administration. Shri M.S.Narayanan, by the aforesaid acts has thereby infringed Rule 3(1)(iii) and Rule 7(ii) of CCS Conduct Rules. Charge (6): That the said Shri M.S.narayanan has through a letter NO.AEA/25 dated10.06.91, under his signature to Shri C.V.Raman, President of the Unrecognisd Accounts Officers Association enclosing therewith a letter dated 13.06.91 addressed by him to all Accounts Officers and a copy of a pamphlet entitled "Thucklal Dharbar" issued by the Executive Committee of the so call Accounts Employees Association instigated the Accounts Officers to join names in fightingthe
Indian Kanoon http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1529770/

Administration thereby infringing Ruel 3(1)(iii) and Rule 7(ii) of CCS Conduct Rules. Charge (7): That the said Shri M.S.Narayanan had not obeyed the written order of the Deputy Accountant General (Administration) to hand over the keys of Almiraha kept in D.C.XI Section of which he was incharge thereby infringing Rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS Conduct Rules. Charge (8): That the said Shri M.S.Narayanan had kept materials other than those required in connnection with official work in Almirah kept in D.C.XI Section of which he was in charge thereby violating Ruel 3(1)(iii) of CCS Conduct Rules. Charge (9): That the said Shri M.S.Narayanan has instigated the staff against the Administration by misrepresenting to the effect that special casual leave had not been sanctioned thereby infringing Rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules. Charge(10): That the said Shri M.S.Narayanan has in his capacity as the selfstyled President of the socalled Accounts Employees Association caused to distribute pamplets on 04.09.91, 05.04.91 and 12.4.91 in the name of Executive Committee, Accounts Employees Association, containing offensive and objectionable language against the Madras Civil Audit and Accounts Association (recognised). He also caused a notice Board containing offensive language against Madras Civil Audit & Accounts Association to be displayed in the foyer of the ground floor on 04.02.91 without permission thereby infringing Rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules. Charge (11): That the said Shri M.S.Narayanan has in his capacity as the selfstyle President of the socalled Accounts Employees Association caused to distribute a letter on 29.5.91 in the name of Executive Committee, Accounts Employees Association directing a section of the Section Officers/Assistant Accounts Officers and Supervisors not to comply with the directions issued by the Administration in Circular No.Con.Cell/CR/9192/28 dated 16.05.91, thereby infringing Rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules. Dispositions below: 4, The enquiry officer found charges Nos.,1, portions of respective of charges 2,7 and 8 as not proved and found that the remaining charges as having been established. The Disciplinary authority confirmed the findings and imposed the punishment as stated above. The Petitioner challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.59 OF 1996 which met with no success. Hence the above writ petition. Contention of petitioner: 5. The petitioner assails the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the findings of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority on the ground that the charges themselves were frivolous and fabricated. The common thread that runs across all the charges is, as the President of Accounts Employees Association, he had used his official position and he had indulged in the activities of the Union on some occasions beyond the office lunch hours and on some occasions indulged in activities that disrupted the proper functioning of the administration. The contention of the petitioner was that the charges were trumped against him with an intention to curtail his union activities and prevent him from doing the duties. According to him the charges were not serious at all to inflict on him the punishment that had huge financial implications of personal loss running nearly Rs.5 lakhs and the amount of pension that he is now drawing after superannuation. It was the further contention that the appellate authority had really reaffirmed the finding of the guilt by the disciplinary authority and had not entered into the merits of the contentions raised by him before the appellate authority. The Central Administrative Tribunal has also not considered the contentions made by him. Before us, the petitioner emphasized that apart from the fact that he had been associated with the activities of the
Indian Kanoon http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1529770/

Union as the President, he had done no wrong and he was being unduly inflicted a major penalty. 6. He would also contend that penalty of reduction by three stages and simultaneously directing that he shall not earn increment during the penalty would amount to double penalty and it is not envisaged under Rule 11(5) of CCS (CCA) Rules. The punishment meted out itself according to him is grossly disproportionate that would shock the conscience of the Court, by virtue of the fact that for trifle of misconduct that could be attributed to him has resulted in infliction of a major penalty. According to him, the type of misconduct that could attract imposition of major penalty has been illustrated by giving out examples which have a bearing of involvement of a delinquent in moral turpitude and failure to maintain integrity. In particular, he would refer to the departmental letter giving the guidelines about the nature of disciplinary action and quantum of punishment that would be commensurate with the gravity of offence committed. 7. As set out the annexure to the letter by the D.G.,P.& T ., letter No. 6/19/72Disc.I, dated 29th November, 1972. reads as follows: "Types of cases which may merit action for imposing one of the major penalties: 1. Cases in which there is a reasonable ground to believe that a penal offence has been committed by a Government servant by the evidence forthcoming is not sufficient for prosecution in a Court of law eg: a. Possession of disproportionate assets; b. Obtaining or attempting to obtain illegal gratification; c. Misappropriation of Government property, money or stores; d. Obtaining or attempting to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without consideration or for a consideration which is not a adequate. 2. Falsification of Government records. 3. Gross irregularity or negligence in the discharge of official duties with a dishonest motive. 4. Misuse of official position or power for personal gain. 5. Disclosure of secret or confidential information even though it does not fall strictly within the scope of the Official Secrets Act. 6. False claims on the Government like T.A. claims, reimbursement claims, etc." Proportionality of punishment to gravity of misconduct" 7. On going through the charges that have been framed, it would be evident that the burden of the song is that he was involved in the activities of Accounts Employees Union and had caused obstruction to the administration. On going through the charges, it could be seen that they are replication in a diverse form of the same allegation of misconduct viz. he, as a President of the Union, had been distributing pamphlets beyond the working hours and that the pamphlets contained abusive of language against the recognised Union and that some letters were distributed exhorting a section of Accounts Officers not to comply with the directions of the administration etc., None of the charges have anything to do with the misconduct of any serious nature. They could be seen to be trivial by the fact that apart from the distribution of some pamphlets or letters, there was nothing particularly serious to doubt his integrity or
Indian Kanoon http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1529770/

commission of any act which could termed to be unworthy of a Government Servant. Some other charges which make serious imputations, such as holding of meeting in the office premises without securing proper permission (Charge No.1) or refusal to hand over the keys of Almirah kept in D.C,.XI section (Charge No.7) or retention of materials not connected with the official work (Charge No.8) have all been found to be not established. The Splitting up of several charges themselves appear to be an exercise in syntactical jugglery and they appear to have been made to seem as very serious misconduct as having been committed. We do not mean to upset the finding of the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority that has affirmed the findings or the Tribunal which has confirmed the finding of the disciplinary authority. They are all essentially matters of appreciation of evidence and we are not persuaded to take any different view from the authorities below. It is too well laid down that the Court shall not interfere with the finding of the departmental authorities and the Courts will not supplant their judgments by what should be appropriate punishment. The administrative authorities are the best Judges in the matter of punishment for the charges. Times without number it has been held that the Courts sitting in judicial review against the quantum of punishment imposed, any disciplinary proceedings would not substitute its own conclusion. The exception that stand out are when the Court that intends to interfere with the quantum of punishment finds that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and it would be most inequitable to allow the same punishment to continue. Law reemphasised, in the factual backdrop: 9. This position of law was emphasised in the decision in State of Gujarat Vs. Anand Acharyar @ Bharat Kumar Sadan JT 2007(4) SC 324 : 2007(3) SCALE 415, making references to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, Bhagat Ram Vs. State of H.P.:AIR 1983 SC 454 : (1983) 2 SCC 442(Ranjit Thakur Vs.Union of India AIR 1987 SC 2386: JT 1987(4) SC 93: (1987) 2 scale 773 ; UP Road Transport Corporation & another Vs. Makesh Kumar Mishra AIR 2000 SC 1151:(2000) 3 SCC 450:(2000) 2 SCALE 367; laying down the proposition that in the event of Court substituting the punishment, there shall be cogent reasons for the same. Indeed, there are enough reasons for finding the punishment to be capricious. All the charges relate to the fact that during his tenure as President of the Accounts officers Association, he had urged his other employees to join for protest against the administration of what he considered to be undemocratic or against the interest of employees. There is no serious charge against him questioning his moral turpitude or integrity of persons. The illustrations of the nature of the disciplinary action and the quantum of punishment to the gravity of the offence indicated by a letter of DGP & T referred to above are also indicative of what would justify the imposition of a major penalty. Whereas, we cannot control the element of discretion in the manner of imposition of penalty, we have a duty to see that the discretion is not untrammeled; they stay within the confines of sound legal reasoning and they are tempered by the even scales of mature justice. 10. The Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.B.Singh VII Edition 1999 at page 138 states "illustrations appended to a section form part of the statute and although forming no part of the section, are relevance and value in the construction of the text of the section and they should not be readily rejected to the section". The observation of the learned author in relation to interpretation to a statute is stated here only to explain the situation, that although we are not dealing with the interpretation of any of the statutory provisions, examples laid down by administrative authorities as measure of guidelines for proper understanding of the instructions regarding the powers vested with the authority in the matter of imposition of punishment are worthy tools which cannot be discarded. 11.We note further that the proceedings themselves have been with reference to the incident of the year 1991 and the employee has been even superannuated. At this length of time it would be futile to direct the disciplinary authority to reconsider the aspect of punishment, when the employee is no longer in employment. In the normal course, we would have been inclined to remit the matter for the purpose of reconsidering the
Indian Kanoon http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1529770/

issue of punishment to the disciplinary authority. But in the special circumstances, we deem it fit in the interest of justice to shorten the litigation to award a punishment of a minor penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for the period of three years without cumulative effect and not adversely affect his pension. Conclusions: 12. On the question of penalty itself, it was contended by the petitioner that the authority could not have inflicted the punishment of reduction to lower stage in the time scale and also deprived the petitioner to earn his increment and it would amount to double penalty. Now, such a mode of punishment is permissible in the form of major penalty as laid down under Section 11 of CCS CCA Rules, but since we have decided to reduce the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority to a minor penalty, It is not necessary to dwell at length on the tenability of such a punishment. 13. We find no scope for interference with the finding of authorities regarding the proof of charges themselves. We set aside the order of Central Administrative Tribunal confirming the decision of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority in so far as it relates to the penalty of reduction of pay to the lower stage in the pay scale for three years and that during the said period, the applicant therein would not earn increment and the reduction of pay itself would have the effect of postponing the reduction in future increment. Instead, the penalty is modified as reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of three years without cumulative effect, not adversely affecting his pension. 14. The writ petition is partly allowed with the above modification of the order of Central Administrative Tribunal and the authorities below as regards the punishment alone. No costs. VJY To 1. The Registrar The Central Administrative Tribunal ( Madras Bench ) High Court Buildings, Chennai 600104. 2. Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002. 3. The Principal Accountant General ( A& E) Office of the principal Accountant General, Chennai 600 018

Indian Kanoon http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1529770/