Madras High Court
Deokrishna … vs Union Of India on 8 August, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
Writ Petition No.1453 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 12.07.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 08.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Writ Petition Nos.1453 of 2017
Deokrishna … Petitioner
Vs
1.Union of India
Rep., by the Desk Officer (Vig.II)
Ministry of Communications and IT,
Department of Telecommunications,
Room No.915, Sanchar Bhawan
No.20, Ashok Road, New Delhi -110 001.
2.The Director (VP)
Ministry of communications and IT,
Department of Telecommunications
(Vigilance wing)
Room No.903, Sanchar Bhawan,
No.20, Ashok Road,
New Delhi – 110 001.
3.Deputy Secretary (VP)
Ministry of Communications and IT,
Department of Telecommunications,
Page No.1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Petition No.1453 of 2017
Room No.915, Sanchar Bhawan,
No.20, Ashok Road, New Delhi – 110 001.
4.Principal Controller of
Communication Accounts,
Ministry of Communications and IT,
Department of Telecommunications,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Chennai – 600 028.
5.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai – 600 104. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the order of the fifth respondent which is made in
O.A.No.192 of 2012 dated 01.05.2015, and quash the same, consequent
to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to restore all the benefits to the petitioner
and to pass such further order.
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Malaichamy
For Respondent : Mr.V.Balasubramanian Senior Panel Counsel
for RR1 to 4
R5 Tribunal
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.)
The instant Writ Petition had been filed by the unsuccessful ap-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
plicant wherein his challenge to the punishment imposed upon him had
been negatived.
2.Heard Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.V.Balasubramanian, learned Senior Panel counsel
appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would sub-
mit that the petitioner while working as a Deputy General Manager in the
office of the General Manager Telecom District, BSNL, Gaya was is-
sued with a charge memo on 17.05.2005 under Rule 16 of the CCS
[CCA] Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). The charge
against the petitioner was that he had purchased certain computer
hardware/software to the tune of Rs.86.6 lakhs against the tender and
agreement value and that too beyond the currency of the agreement
period, which was alleged to have been made with ulterior motive for the
benefit of the supplier and himself. He would submit that the petitioner
denied the charges and that apart he had also alleged that the charge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
memo would not have been issued by the authority other than the discip-
linary authority, who is the President of India.
4. He would further submit that the petitioner has not been au-
thorised to call for any fresh tender. When that being so, there is no ques-
tion of the petitioner calling for fresh tender for purchase of computer
hardware and software. Apart from the jurisdiction of the disciplinary
authority, he would also contend that no enquiry was conducted to drive
home the allegations made in the charge sheet and he was imposed with a
punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years. He
would further submit that the petitioner alone had been singled out, even
though there are various other officers involved in the said purchase and
therefore, the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against him is not
only arbitrary, but also a colourable exercise of power. He vehemently
contend that the Rule 16 provides for the enquiry to be conducted, but
however, no enquiry was conducted and based on the reply given by the
petitioner to the charge memo, the punishment had been imposed.
Therefore, he would submit that there has also been a violation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
principles of natural justice. All these aspects have been over looked by
the Tribunal and had dismissed his Original Application. In support of his
contention, he would rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in W.P.No.3902 of 2015 and contend that even for imposing a
minor penalty such as that has been imposed against the petitioner,
enquiry ought to have been conducted. Therefore, he would seek
interference with the order passed by the Tribunal.
5. Countering his arguments, Mr.V.Balasubramanian, the learned
Senior Panel counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the
petitioner had purchased computer hardware and software to the tune of
Rs.86.60 lakhs as against the tender and agreement value of
Rs.30,00,000/-. He would further submit that the earlier tender period
was over and the agreement that was entered with the private party for
supply also by efflux of time, had expired. But however, without calling
for any fresh tender, purchase orders were placed for the aforesaid value
beyond the currency period with the same vendor. This created a doubt
on his devotion to duty which was unbecoming of a Government ser-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
vant and therefore, charges were framed under Rule 16 of the Rules. It is
an admitted case that there is a delegation of power of the Appoint-
ing Authority/disciplinary authority. He would submit that the deleg-
atee had only carried on the powers vested with him, only in the name of
the disciplinary authority. He would submit that there is no mandate
for conducting an enquiry for imposing minor penalty under Rule 16
of the Rules.
6. He would further contend that the petitioner had not asked for
any enquiry or personal hearing. Since he was found guilty of the charges
based on the material records, which speaks for itself, namely the
petitioner beyond the period of agreement, had placed purchase order with
the same vendor. He would submit that the judgment relied upon by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would not be applicable to the
facts of the case, as the Division Bench had only held that some minor
penalties may have a long term effect and in such case, enquiry ought to
have been conducted. Further he would submit that in the facts of the
case, the allegation against the delinquent Officer in the matter decided by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Division Bench was an allegation which could only be proved by way
of evidence. He would submit that in the present case, the delinquency
that is alleged to have been committed was that he had made purchases
based upon expired agreement. Therefore, the record speaks for itself and
there is no necessity to conduct an enquiry as prayed by the petitioner. He
further submit that the Tribunal had correctly analysed the facts placed on
record and infact on merits, the petitioner found guilty of the delinquency
that had been alleged. Therefore, he would submit that there is no
necessity to interfere with the impugned order before this Court.
7.We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on re-
cord.
8.As regards the jurisdiction, the Tribunal had referred to the vari-
ous aspects and had given a categorical finding that the authority had the
jurisdiction to pass the order imposing the punishment. We find no reas-
on to differ with the view taken by Tribunal in that aspect we affirm the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
view taken by the Tribunal.
9.However, as regards to the issue raised by the petitioner that the
Rule 16 mandates an enquiry before passing an order of punishment is
concerned, we propose to analyse the provision of Rule 16 of CCS (CCA)
Rules. Rule 16 reads thus under:-
“16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties [1] Sub-
ject to the provisions of sub-rule [3] of Rule 15, no order im-
posing on a Government servant any of the penalties spe-
cified in Clause [1] to [iv] of Rule 11 shall be made except
after --
[a] informing the Government servant in writing of the
proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be
taken, and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such
representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;
[b] holding an enquiry in the manner laid down in sub-
rules [3] to [23] of Rule 14, in every case in which the
Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is
necessary;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[c] taking the representation, if any, submitted by the
Government servant under Clause [a] and the record of
inquiry, if any, held under Clause [b] into consideration;
[d] recording a finding on each imputation of mis-
conduct or misbehaviour; and
[e] consulting the Commission where such con-
sultation is necessary.”
10.Rule 16 (1)(b) indicates that an enquiry in the manner laid down
in sub-Rule (3) to (23) of Rule 14 can be made if the disciplinary author-
ity is of the opinion that such enquiry is necessary. In the present case as
rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Panel counsel for the re-
spondents, on receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner had also not
intimated that an enquiry was required to be conducted. Further, the
allegation made against the petitioner was that he had placed orders with
the vendor whose agreement had expired by efflux of time. The petitioner
had not placed any materials on record to substantiate his claim that he
had only placed orders with the vendor, whose agreement was in
subsistence. When that being so, the petitioner cannot claim to have not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
committed any delinquency. In this case, the record speaks for itself and
the Tribunal has also given a specific finding that the petitioner has
committed the delinquency. The Tribunal was also right in holding that
the punishment could only be interfered, when there are no evidence,
perverse evidence of the same has been made on surmises and
conjectures. Those grounds are not available to the petitioner. Further we
are also of the considered view that the Division Bench judgment of this
Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be
applicable to the facts of the present case. On the facts of the case, the
Division Bench had held that to come to a conclusion that a finding of
negligence could only be made based upon an enquiry and not otherwise.
In the present case, it is not negligence on the part of the petitioner, but a
flagrant violation of Rule of law by placing orders with a vendor whose
agreement had expired by efflux of time.
11. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and in fine, the
Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(D.K.K.,A.C.J.,) (K.B., J.)
08.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
pbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.Union of India
Rep., by the Desk Officer (Vig.II)
Ministry of Communications and IT,
Department of Telecommunications,
Room No.915, Sanchar Bhawan
No.20, Ashok Road, New Delhi -110 001.
2.The Director (VP)
Ministry of communications and IT,
Department of Telecommunications
(Vigilance wing)
Room No.903, Sanchar Bhawan,
No.20, Ashok Road,
New Delhi – 110 001.
3.Deputy Secretary (VP)
Ministry of Communications and IT,
Department of Telecommunications,
Room No.915, Sanchar Bhawan,
No.20, Ashok Road, New Delhi – 110 001.
4.Principal Controller of
Communication Accounts,
Ministry of Communications and IT,
Department of Telecommunications,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Chennai – 600 028.
5.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.KRISHNAKUMAR., ACJ.,
and
K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.
Pbn
Pre-Delivery Order in
Writ Petition Nos.1453 of 2017
08.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
