Prem Nath Ex-D Men-11 vs Union Of India And Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 96 Del

$~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

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.

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

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

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