Mrs. Nanda Narayan Thombare vs Union Of India Through Secretary ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 642 Bom

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 642 Bom
Judgement Date : 18 January, 2023

Bombay High Court

Mrs. Nanda Narayan Thombare vs Union Of India Through Secretary ... on 18 January, 2023

Bench: Sandeep V. Marne

                        k                                  1/5                  46 wp 12377.19 as.doc




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                              WRIT PETITION NO.12377 OF 2019

                        Nanda Narayan Thombare                             ....Petitioner
                             V/S
                        Union of India & Ors.                              ....Respondents
                                                            ...
                        Mr. Ramesh Rammurthy a/w Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy, Ms. Kavita Anchan
                        and Ms. Seema Sorte for the Petitioner.
                        Mr. R.R. Shetty a/w Mrs. Anjali Helekar, Mr. Prasenjit Khasla for
                        Respondent-UOI.
                                                            ...

                                                        CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
                                                               SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 18 JANUARY 2023.

P.C.:

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties

for final disposal.

2 The Petitioner joined the services of the Respondent Department as

Operator Grade B. During the service tenure the Petitioner was promoted

as Senior Supervisor on 20 January 2014. On 16 June 2015 charge-sheet

was issued against the Petitioner. The charges were regarding absence of

duty for about 2 days. The charges against the Petitioner are as under:

"Article I Smt. N.N. Thombare, Sr. Supervisor while engaged in CAC work in Data Centre, Mulund absented herself from duty from 10.9.2014 to 12.9.2014 without prior intimation which is indicative of negligence and lack of interest in work.

Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date:

2023.01.21 14:32:51 +0530

k 2/5 46 wp 12377.19 as.doc

The said conduct is in violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article II Smt. N.N. Thombare, Sr. Supervisor while engaged in CAC work in Data Centre at Mulund refused to receive office memo which is indicative of disobedience to Superior's that amounts misconduct.

Smt. N.N. Thombare by doing so, has violated the provisions of Rule 3 (1)(i) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article III Smt. N.N. Thombare, Sr. Supervisor while engaged in CAC work in Data Centre at Mulund made false statements using abusive and indecent language against superior's communications which is indicative of unbecoming of a government servant.

The said conduct is in violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article IV Smt. N.N. Thombare, Sr. Supervisor acquired immovable property by way of purchase of flat without previous knowledge of the authority that amounts to misconduct.

Smt. N.N. Thombare by doing so, has violated the provisions of Rule 18(2) & (4) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."

3 The Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal

(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short) by filing the Original

Application bearing No.620 of 2015 challenging the charge-sheet. The

Tribunal dismissed the Original Application under the impugned judgment

and order. Aggrieved thereby the present Petition.

 k                                  3/5               46 wp 12377.19 as.doc




4     Mr. Rammurthy, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that

the charges against the Petitioner were not grave. The Petitioner stood

superannuated on 31 January 2017. The enquiry is not concluded. The

learned Advocate for the Petitioner relies upon Rules 8 and 9 of the CCS

(Pension) Rules. According to the learned Advocate for the Petitioner the

charges did not imply grave misconduct. The learned Advocate for the

Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of

India & Ors. vs. B Dev reported in (1998) 7 SCC 691.

5 The learned Advocate for the Respondents submits that the Tribunal

has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and has arrived at the

correct conclusion. No error has been committed by the Tribunal. The

Petitioner after having approached the Tribunal, secured an order of stay to

the enquiry. The stay continued up to 18 September 2019 on account of

which the enquiry could not be concluded. According to the learned

Counsel the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Union of India and

others (supra) is distinguishable on facts.

6 We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned

Counsel for the parties. On perusal of the charges against the Petitioner it

would be manifest that the charges against the Petitioner were not such that

would come within realm of expression 'grave misconduct'.

 k                                 4/5                  46 wp 12377.19 as.doc




7     As the charges against the Petitioner do not come within the ambit

and purview of the expression 'grave misconduct', it would be unfair to

continue the disciplinary proceedings after retirement. The Apex Court has

considered the definition of 'grave misconduct' in case of Union of India

and others (supra).

8 The explanation (b) to Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules explains

the expression 'grave misconduct'. The same may include the

communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any

sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information, such as is

mentioned in section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The same may not

be exhaustive. However, in the present case, on perusal of the charges

which relate to negligence, lack of interest in duty, use of indecent language

and purchase of property without the previous knowledge of the Authority.