$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 47/2014
% Date of decision: 6th January, 2013
PREM NATH EX-D MEN-11 ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Prakash Chandra, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.B.V.Niren, CGSC with Mr.M.P.
Singh for R-1 and R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J. (oral)
1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17th April, 2013 whereby his O.A.No.847/2012 was rejected. The petitioner also challenges the order passed on 4 th September, 2013 rejecting his review petitioner being R.A.No.110/2013.
2. It appears that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated agaist the petitioner on the following charges:
"Article I That the said Shri Prem Nath, while serving as W.P.(C) 47/2014 Page 1 of 5 D'Man-II in the Dte of Fleet Maintenance, did remain unauthorisedly absent for 233 days in various spells between 13 Sep 206 to 01 Jun 2007.
Shri Prem Nath, D'Man-II, by his above act has exhibited lack of absolute integrity, devotion to duty and has exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Govt.servant and thereby violated Rules 3 (1) (i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article II That the said Shri Prem Nath, while serving as D'Man-II in the Dte of Fleet Maintenance, is in the habit of absenting from duties without seeking leave sanction or prior permission. As he was not having leave to his credit, he was granted EOL for 1515 days from 1989 to 2006. He has availed 174 HPL/Commuted Leave during the aforesaid period. Shri Prem Nath has been issued Show Cause Notices from time to time. The DGS on each occasion has in reply regretted that it will not happen in future but failed to improve his conduct ad continued to remain absent unauthorisedly from duty.
Shri Prem Nath, D'Man-II, by his above his above said act exhibited lack of devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a Govt. Servant and thereby violated Rules 3(1)
(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article III That the said Shri Prem Nath, while serving as D'Man-II in Dte of Fleet Maintenance was penalized earlier also vide Order No.CP (L)/5301/1/01 dated 03-7-03 for being unauthorisedly absent from duty.
Shri Prem Nath, D'Man-II, by his above act has exhibited lack of absolute integrity and a conduct unbecoming of a Govt. Servant and thereby violated Rules 3 (1) (i) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
3. Charge Memo was served on the petitioner on 10th July, 2007 but he did not submit any reply to the same.
W.P.(C) 47/2014 Page 2 of 5
4. During the inquiry, the petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges. Evidence was recorded and based thereon the disciplinary authority returned finding of guilty of the charges. Copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner under cover of a note dated 11th September, 2009 to enable him to make any objection thereof. The petitioner acknowledged receipt of the enquiry report on 14 th September, 2009. Yet no representation or objection was submitted by him against the enquiry report.
5. Thereafter, the Chief of Personnel of the Ministry of Defence (Navy) considered the entire matter and by an order dated 27th November, 2009 concluded that the charges framed against the petitioner stood proved beyond doubt. In para 3 of the of this order the disciplinary authority has specifically recorded that the finding was based on the evidence on record as well as the plea of guilty to the charges on the part of the petitioner.
6. So far as imposition of the punishment is concerned, the disciplinary authority considered all relevant facts and concluded that the petitioner did not deserve any further leniency and that his retention in service would not be in the organisational interest. The W.P.(C) 47/2014 Page 3 of 5 order dated 27th November, 2009 imposing penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner on the plea of guilty was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that he same was communicated to him by an authority subordinate to the disciplinary authority. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner had placed order of punishment dated 27th November, 2009 on record. The Tribunal held that the same has been duly signed by the disciplinary authority.
7. The challenge before us is on the same ground. We have scrutinized the order dated 27th November, 2009 which stands signed by the Disciplinary Authority. For this reason, the challenge by the petitioner in the writ petition, on the ground that the order had been issued under the signature of an authority subordinate to the disciplinary authority has to be rejected.
8. It appears that the petitioner did not avail remedy of the statutory appeal, instead he made a non statutory representation dated 7th December, 2011 to the Director of Civil Personnel Services Integrated Head Quarters-Ministry of Defence (Navy) on 22nd November, 2011 simply praying for reinstatement in service. This representation was given to the authority subordinate to the W.P.(C) 47/2014 Page 4 of 5 Disciplinary Authority and such request obviously could not be considered by him.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his application before the Central Administrative Tribunal was rejected on the ground of limitation.
10. A reading of the impugned order dated 17th April, 2013 as well as the above discussion would show that this petition is based on a factually incorrect premise and is completely devoid of any legal merit. It appears that by way of the review petition, the petitioner had re-agitated the same issues and review application no.110/2013 therefore stood rejected by the order dated 4th September, 2013. The same is legally impermissible.
11. In view of above, no ground for interference with the impugned orders is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
GITA MITTAL, J DEEPA SHARMA, J JANUARY 06, 2014 rb W.P.(C) 47/2014 Page 5 of 5