Telangana High Court
B. Madhusudan vs The Union Of India And 10 Others on 26 September, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
WRIT PETITION No.2200 OF 2021
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Mr. B. Madhusudan, petitioner / party-in-person, and
Mr. K. Balakrishna, learned counsel for respondent No.11.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for the following
reliefs:
"The petitioner is most respectfully humbly submits that for
the factual backdrop and factual matrix submitted in the writ
petition and writ petition miscellaneous petitions, legal position,
valid legal grounds, in view of Judgment of Hon'ble Chief Justice
of Hon'ble Supreme Court, for reasons submitted above and to
respect our holy book in letter and spirit in the interest of justice
and fair play, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court, may
graciously be pleased":
1. To allow Writ Petition with Rs 10,00,000 (ten lakhs)
exemplary costs on respondents (recoverable from erring
officers) for deliberately, willfully, inspired by malice for vested
interests dragged the petitioner into this litigation by creating
false documents without inherent lack of jurisdiction by playing
fraud on the Constitution of India, fraud on court, fraud on the
petitioner which was totally avoidable.
2. To quash & set aside Director General (Commercial)-1
order dated 30.08.2016, Deputy Comptroller & Auditor General
(Commercial) Order dated 20.11.2017, Comptroller & Auditor
General of India Order dated 04.01.2019, Charge Sheet dated
09.04.2015, Hon'ble Tribunal orders dated 03.06.2019,
09.09.2019 etc.
3. To direct R-1 to treat the period of absence of the
petitioner with effect from 03.01.2012 onwards till the date of
normal retirement as duty for all purposes including seniority,
promotion, increment, pension etc as fraud has no existence in
the eyes of law as the transfer Order dated 14.12.2011 was suo
motu cancelled and merged with the orders dated 30.08.2016,
20.11.2017 04.01.2019 and completely wiped out from
existence and the petitioner was unconstitutionally prevented
from discharging his duties and to pay his arrears of pay and
allowances with effect from 03.01.2012 onwards to till the date
of his normal retirement along with interest 36 percent p.a from
the date pay and allowances was due till the date of actual
payment in accordance with the Rules prescribed by law. It is
not out of place to submit here that the then Respondent No-1
(Shri Vinod Rai) had paid cost Rs.5000 and interest @ 10
percent p.a with effect from 23.12.2008 onwards to till the date
of actual payment as directed by Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.No.140
of 2012 vide order dated 18.09.2012.
4. To direct R-1 to pay vindictive damages of
Rs.10 crores (recoverable from erring officers) as fraud, lack of
integrity of the respondents have no existence in the eyes of law
and orders deliberately, willfully passed in fragrant violation of
Article 311, 14, 21, 141 etc., of the Constitution of India were
null and void and non est in the eyes of law.
5. To direct R-8 i.e. Shri Rajiv Mehrishi Comptroller & Auditor
General of India New Delhi to pay Rs. one crore personally from
his pay and allowances if this Hon'ble Court convinced that he
deliberately, willfully by playing fraud not paid pay and
allowances of the petitioner for eight years in violation of Article
311, 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India.
6. To direct R-9 i.e., Shri M.S.Subramanyam, Director General
to a minimum amount of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner for
deliberately, willfully colluding with the other respondents,
depicting total lack of integrity etc., if the Hon'ble Chief Justice
is convinced that he deliberately, willfully for vested interest not
supplied vital fundamental documents in violation of mandatory
constitutional provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of
India and for submitting misleading and misrepresenting replies
befooling judges in our country.
7. To direct R-10 i.e., Ms Rebecca Mathai to pay Rs.one crore
personally to the petitioner from her pay and allowances for
unconstitutional sealing of his residential accommodation on
05.06.2017 without inherent lack of jurisdiction if this Hon'ble
Court convinced that she deliberately, willfully by laying fraud
sealed petitioners residential accommodation in violation of inter
alia Article, 21 and 14, 311 of the Constitution of India.
8. To direct R-11 i.e. Hon'ble Mr. Justice
L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman to pay Rs. one crore to the
petitioner for deliberately, willfully violating Article 311, 14, 21
etc., of the Constitution of India in collusion with the
respondents, depicting total lack of integrity etc., if the Hon'ble
Chief Justice is convinced that he deliberately, willfully
disrespected our Holy Book, Magna Carta or Great Charter of
India.
The petitioner was a victim of fraud on the Constitution of India
and approached the Hon'ble Tribunal for justice. All are equal
before law and bound by supreme law of land;
9. To pass such other orders or any other relief or direction
which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the
facts, merits and circumstances of the case to safeguard the
interests of crores of innocent Taxpayers & to meet the ends of
justice and upholding the supremacy of Rule of Law etc.
Respondent independent integrity Constitutional
Organization is a welfare State and a model employer within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India headed by R-1
i.e., Shri Rajiv Mehrishi Comptroller & Auditor General of
India.R-1 is the arm of Constitution of India and plays pivotal
role in the safe guarding the interest of tax payers and is
responsible for the conduct of the audit of total expenditure of
the Union and the State Governments more than Rupees 30
lakh crores per annum & is responsible for the conduct of the
audit of financial transactions of 1760 public sector
undertakings, 683 Central Autonomous Bodies, besides
hundreds of State Autonomous Bodies.
I, therefore, pray the Hon'ble Court that it may graciously
be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the
nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records pertaining to the
orders dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in O.A.No.1154 of 2018
and M.A No 312 of 2018, M.A No.313 of 2018 in O.A No 1154 of
2018 and quash the same as violative of Articles 311, 14, 21,
141, 32 etc., of the Constitution of India, illegal, biased,
arbitrary and violative of principles of Law and pass such other
order as the Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the
interest of justice"."
3. Though the nature of pleadings and the relief sought for travels
through the chequered history of the petitioner's career under the
respondents, but primarily the petitioner through the present writ
petition is assailing the order dated 03.06.2019, in O.A.No.1154 of
2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for
short 'the Tribunal') where under challenge before the Tribunal in the
said O.A. was an order dated 30.08.2016, passed by the Director
General (Commercial)-I-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Office of the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi.
4. Vide the said impugned order, the petitioner after a disciplinary
proceedings under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification,
Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965) was inflicted
with a punishment of 'compulsory retirement' w.e.f., 30.08.2016. In
addition to the order of punishment of compulsory retirement, the
disciplinary authority also held that during the intervening period
between 14.04.2012 and 29.08.2016 also be treated as dies non.
5. The order of punishment was pursuant to a departmental enquiry
initiated wherein the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated
09.04.2015 which stood served upon the petitioner on 16.04.2015.
The said charge sheet contained two articles of charges which reads
thus:
(i) Non-compliance of the official order of PDCA, MAB dated
13.04.2012 relieving him to join the office of PAG (Audit)-
III, Mumbai, Maharashtra; and
(ii) Using abusive, intemperate, discourteous, intimidating
and derogatory language against superiors and senior
officers of the department.
6. From the records available in the writ petition, what is clearly
reflected is that in spite of the charge sheet having been serve upon
the petitioner and sufficient opportunity being given, the petitioner did
not submit his explanation to the charge sheet within the stipulated
period of time and also within the extended period of time, the
petitioner failed to submit his explanation to the charge sheet.
However, at a belated stage, the petitioner did submit his explanation,
but when he was called upon to participate in the departmental
enquiry, he failed to participate in the proceedings leading to the
Enquiry Officer proceeding ex parte against him. In spite of the
petitioner being fully aware of the developments so far as disciplinary
proceedings are concerned, he chose not to participate in the same and
kept sending representations after representations unconnected with
the disciplinary proceedings and the charges leveled against him.
Subsequently, the Enquiry Officer further advised and gave the
petitioner an advice asking him to cooperate and participate in the
enquiry proceedings and finally he was also granted an opportunity to
submit his written defence if at all he intends to produce or submit
before the Enquiry Officer. Since he did participate in the enquiry, the
enquiry was concluded ex parte. The Enquiry Officer before submitting
his enquiry report directed the petitioner to appear for personal hearing
along with his defence assistant, if any, for at least three times, which
too the petitioner failed to avail. The petitioner later on was also
informed about the date on which the listed due documents
enumerated in the charge memo would be presented and examined
before the Enquiry Officer. Even on that date, the petitioner absented
himself and on which date the Enquiry Officer was left with no other
option but to proceed ex parte. Subsequently also, the petitioner was
informed of the regular dates of hearing of the enquiry proceedings on
various occasions and in all the dates of hearing, the petitioner chose
not to attend the same and without there being any valid or cogent
reason or grounds for not attending the enquiry proceedings, all of
which forced the Enquiry Officer to conclude the enquiry proceedings
ex parte. Thereafter, the petitioner was again sent with a notice so as
to ensure compliance of principles of natural justice asking the
delinquent petitioner if he so wants to record his defence statement or
to lead any evidence in his support. The petitioner though belatedly did
submit his written statement of defence on the first charge i.e., Article
No.1 and finally the Presenting Officer submitted his written brief on
03.12.2015 and the petitioner in turn submitted his defence brief dated
18.12.2015. Finally, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report
holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner stood proved. In
spite of best efforts being made, the petitioner did not respond to the
enquiry report. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority made a couple
of attempts in ensuring supply of enquiry report to the petitioner but
the attempt made by the respondent-department failed as there was
total non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner. Subsequently, a
notice was pasted at his house to appear before the authorities under
the respondents so that the petitioner can come and receive the
enquiry report, which too the petitioner did not honor and
comply and finally vide order dated 30.08.2016, the disciplinary
authority passed the order of punishment. The said order dated
30.08.2016 was subjected to challenge before the Tribunal vide
O.A.No.021/1154/2018. The Tribunal also after hearing the rival parties
dismissed the O.A. vide order dated 03.06.2019, which has led to filing
of the instant writ petition.
7. As can be seen from the pleadings and the multiple reliefs sought
for, the petitioner, in fact, was primarily challenging the punishment
order of compulsory retirement. Though the petitioner initially in the
course of his submissions did try to argue of various other issues
otherwise than punishment of compulsory retirement, finally, he agreed
to argue his case confining himself to the punishment order of
compulsory retirement.
8. The petitioner had primarily challenged the order firstly on the
ground that the order of compulsory retirement has not been passed by
a competent person. Thus, the order of punishment being other than
that of the appointing authority and that too an Officer who is lower in
rank than the appointing authority in terms of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India, the same was bad in law and unconstitutional.
According to the petitioner, he belonged to Group 'A' Officer cadre and
the Officer who has passed the order of punishment of compulsory
retirement was not otherwise authorized to impose punishment for a
Group 'A' Officer.
9. The second contention of the petitioner was that the entire
disciplinary proceedings initiated was because of mala fides and bias
only on account of the order of transfer which was earlier issued by the
department dated 14.12.2011 having not been complied with.
According to him, since the order of transfer itself was with mala fides
and bias, the same was unconstitutional and, therefore, the disciplinary
proceedings itself was liable to be vitiated.
10. Thirdly, it was contended that he was not given a fair opportunity
of hearing during the disciplinary proceedings, inasmuch as he had filed
certain representations requesting to furnish certain documents and
which the department had not furnished and, therefore, the impugned
order of compulsory retirement needs to be interdicted on the ground
of violation of principles of natural justice.
11. Lastly, it was contended by the petitioner that since the
department has not filed any written statement or counter before the
Tribunal, responding to O.A.No.1154 of 2018, the respondents cannot
be permitted to argue their case nor can their counter, if any filed in
the instant writ petition, be taken into cognizance.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.11
disputed and denied all the averments raised and contended by the
petitioner. According to him, the petitioner, in fact, was not a Group 'A'
officer as was being contended. He further submitted that even
otherwise on the date when the order of punishment was passed,
undisputedly, the petitioner was a Group 'B' Officer and, therefore, the
Officer who had passed the order of punishment was fully competent
and authorized to pass the order of punishment. The learned counsel
further contended that the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary
proceedings on the ground of insubordination and also for his conduct
unbecoming of a Government employee. The so-called misconduct was
proved before the Enquiry Officer by the Presenting Officer. The
petitioner chose not to contest the proceedings before the Enquiry
Officer and which led to the Enquiry Officer proceeding ex parte against
the petitioner and submitting the enquiry report holding the charges to
be proved.
13. Lastly, it was contended by the learned counsel for respondent
that mere perusal of the order of punishment dated 30.08.2016 would
by itself show the numerous opportunities of hearing being provided to
the petitioner at every stage of the enquiry, right from the issuance of
articles of charges itself. But there was a consistent deliberate non-
cooperation on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, by no stretch of
imagination can the same be held to be violative of principles of natural
justice. According to him, if the petitioner was willfully abstaining
himself from appearing before the Enquiry Officer and also willfully not
availing the opportunity being provided at every stage of the
proceedings would amount to due compliance of all the principles of
natural justice. Therefore, prayed for upholding of the order of the
Administrative Tribunal.
14. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on
perusal of records, what is primarily to be adjudicated upon by this
Bench in the course of deciding the instant writ petition is, "as to
whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O.A. that the
petitioner had filed assailing the order of compulsory retirement?"
15. From the facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs, we are of
the considered opinion that, in fact the three major grounds on which
the petitioner has assailed the order of compulsory retirement are that
which needs to be answered. Those are:-
(i) Whether the authority which has passed the order of compulsory
retirement dated 30.08.2016 was the competent authority or the
disciplinary authority so far as the petitioner is concerned. If not,
the consequences.
(ii) Whether the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and
issuance of the order of compulsory retirement was with mala
fide and ulterior motive or not, so as to vitiate the same.
(iii) Whether in the course of conducting departmental enquiry,
the authorities have abided to the principles of natural justice or
not.
(iv) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the
O.A. in spite of the department having not filed their Counter
before the Tribunal and in the absence of anything in rebuttal to
the averments made in the petition before the Tribunal, the O.A.
could not had been dismissed by the Tribunal.
16. Coming to the first ground raised by the petitioner, we need to
put certain facts on record to better appreciate the issue.
The petitioner in the instant case was appointed vide order dated
25.03.1983 to the post of Section Officer (Commercial). The said order
was issued on behalf of the Additional Deputy Comptroller Auditor
General (Commercial) which was signed by some other officer for the
Additional Deputy Comptroller Auditor General from the Central Pay
Commission recommendation. The Additional Deputy Comptroller and
Auditor General are responsible for discharging the functions of
Accountant General, Chief Auditors in their functional areas and assist
the Comptroller and Auditor General in vetting the audit reports and
servicing the parliamentary committees. As per the recommendation of
the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Deputy Comptroller and
Auditor General have been equated to the post of Secretary to
Government and those of the Additional Deputy Comptroller and
Auditor General are equated to the post of Additional Secretary to
Government.
17. Vide order dated 11.11.2002, the petitioner got further promoted
along with other similarly placed persons from the post of Audit Officer
(Commercial) to the cadre of Senior Audit Officer (Commercial). The
said order was though from the office of Comptroller and Auditor
General of India, but was issued by the Principal Director (Commercial)
and the order of promotion was signed by an Administrative Officer/CA-
I. The petitioner continued to work on the said post at the same place
till 14.12.2011.
18. On 14.12.2011, there was a re-shuffling of the officers in the
department and an order of transfer was issued for many of the officers
and one of the officers was the petitioner himself who was transferred
from Hyderabad to Maharashtra. He was working under Pr.DCA/MAB-
HYD and stood transferred to the office of AG(CA) Maharashtra.
19. Not happy with the order dated 14.12.2011 transferring the
petitioner from Hyderabad to Maharashtra; he preferred to challenge
the same before the Tribunal vide O.A.No.1294 of 2011 and contested
his case before the Tribunal himself. The Tribunal, finally vide order
dated 29.02.2012, dismissed the said O.A. holding that the transfer for
a Government employee is an incident to service and that the petitioner
has not been able to show any mala fides or the order of transfer to be
violative of any of the service rules. The petitioner challenged the order
of the Tribunal before the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh
(as it then was under the unified State of Andhra Pradesh) vide
W.P.No.7256 of 2012. Initially, an order of stay was granted by the
High Court on 26.03.2012. Subsequently, after hearing both the sides
finally, the High Court vide order dated 13.04.2012 dismissed the writ
petition holding it to be devoid of merit and, moreover, the incumbent
who was transferred in place of petitioner at Hyderabad had already
assumed charge and started discharging his duties and that he was also
not a party to any to these proceedings.
20. Meanwhile, the petitioner had resorted to a contempt proceeding
against the respondents alleging non-compliance of the interim order
passed by the High Court on 26.03.2012 in W.P.No.7256 of 2012.
However, in view of the subsequent developments, the contempt case
stood dismissed vide order dated 24.07.2015. After dismissal of the
aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner immediately stood relieved from
service from Hyderabad on 13.04.2012 itself. Though he stood relieved
from the office from 13.04.2012, the petitioner did not report at the
transferred place i.e. at Maharashtra. He was issued with a memo
dated 19.02.2014 asking to report for duty immediately, failing which
he will be subjected to disciplinary action. Earlier also similar memos
were issued, but the petitioner did not pay any heed and, finally, an
office memorandum dated 02.06.2015 was issued asking the petitioner
to immediately report for duty in the office of the Accountant General,
Audit-III, Maharashtra, Mumbai, within 15 days, which too was not
honored by the petitioner. Finally, the petitioner was issued with a
charge-memo on 09.04.2015 wherein two charges were leveled against
him. The said charges have already been reproduced in the initial part
of this order. A detailed enquiry was conducted and the petitioner
deliberately appears did not cooperate in the departmental enquiry, as
in spite of repeat opportunity of hearing being provided right from the
stage of issuance of charge-memo, the petitioner chose not to respond
to the charge-memo and secondly, chose not to put up his defence
before the Enquiry Officer or participate in the enquiry proceedings.
21. Under the said circumstances, an ex parte proceedings was
initiated by the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry report holding the
charges to have been proved was issued, which stood challenged by
the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also dismissed the
petitioner's appeal which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
22. Initially, the ground of competence raised by the petitioner to the
order of punishment was on the ground that the petitioner's
substantive base station was Ranchi and, therefore, the disciplinary
authority could not had been Director General (Commercial) - I, rather
it ought to had been Director General (Commercial) - II. Further, it is
only at the High Court stage when the writ petition was filed, the
petitioner has taken the ground of disciplinary authority being lower
than the appointing authority. Therefore, according to him, the order of
compulsory retirement is bad in law in terms of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India.
23. The CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 specifically lays down details
regarding the penalties and the disciplinary authority in respect of a
Government employee. Rule 13 deals with authority to institute
proceedings, and Rule 14 deals with the procedure for imposing
punishment. The Ministry of Finance had issued a notification dated
20.04.2012 prescribing the authorities competent to impose penalties
in terms of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. For ready reference, the
classification of the post and the penalties which can be imposed by
each of the post holders is reproduced hereunder, viz.,
Ministry of Finance
(Department of Expenditure)
New Delhi, the 20th April, 2012
S.O. 1527.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of Rule
(9), clause (b) of Sub-Rule (2) of rule 12(1) of Rule 24 read with Rule 34 of
the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the
President after constitution with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India,
hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure)
vide S.O. No.2915, dated the 13th September, 1988, namely :-
In the said notification, for the Schedule, the following schedule shall be
substituted :-
COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL'S MANUAL OF STANDING ORDERS
(ADMINISTRATIVE), VOL. II
Section 'E'
Powers under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1965 -
Part I-General Central Services - Group 'B'
Authority competent to impose penalties
and penalties which it may impose (with
reference to item numbers in rules 11 of)
CCS (CCA) Rules
Description of post Appointing Authority Authority Penalties Appellate Authority Remarks/Authority
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Indian Audit and
Accounts Department
1. Office of the
Comptroller and
Auditor General of India
All Group B posts in Officer in the rank of Officer in the All Deputy Comptroller S.O. No. 2815
Pay Band-3, Grade Pay Principal Accountant rank of Principal and Auditor General dated 13-9-1988
of Rs. 5400, Pay Band-2, General or Accountant Accountant or or Additional Deputy published in the
Grade Pay of Rs. 5400, General or Officer of Account General Comptroller and Gazette dated
Rs. 4800, Rs. 4600 or equivalent rank or Officer of Auditor General 24-9-19988,
Corresponding thereof. equivalent rank Corrigendum S.O.
No.3349 dated 1-
11-1988,
corrigendum S.O.
266 (E) 22-2-1990
and S.O. 667 dated
21-2-1991
published in
Gazette of India
dated 9-3-1991
Part II, Section
3(ii) at Page 1137
1. (A) All Group 'B' posts Officer in the rank Officer in the rank All Heads of Depart- -do-
In PB-2 with Grade Pay of Senior Deputy of Senior Deputy ment in the rank
Rs. 4200 or corresponding Accountant General Accountant General of Principal Accoun-
thereof. or Deputy Accountant or Deputy Accountant tant General or
General or Officer of General or Officer of Accountant General
Equivalent rank. equivalent rank. or Officer of
equivalent rank
2. All field offices
(including training
institutions)
Subordinates to the
Comptroller and
Auditor-General of
India, other than
Commercial Audit
Wing in Civil Audit
Offices.
All Group B posts in Heads of Department Heads of Department All Deputy Comptroller -do-
Pay Band-3, Grade in the rank of in the rank of Principal and Auditor-General
Pay of Rs. 5400, Pay Principal Accountant Accountant General or Additional Deputy
Band-2, Grade Pay General or Accountant or Accountant General Comptroller and
of Rs. 5400, Rs. 4800 or Officer of or Officer of equivalent Auditor General
Rs. 4600 or corres- equivalent rank rank
ponding thereof.
2. (A) All Group B Officer in the rank of Officer in the rank of All Heads of Department -do-
Posts in PB-2 with Senior Deputy Senior Deputy in the rank of
Grade Pay Rs. 4200 Accountant General or Accountant General or Principal Accountant
or corresponding Deputy Accountant Deputy Accountant General or
thereof. General or Officer of General or Officer of
equivalent rank equivalent rank
3. All Commercial
Audit Offices and
Commercial Audit
Wings in Civil
Audit Offices,
subordinate to the
Comptroller and
Auditor General of
India.
All Group B posts in Officer in the rank Heads of Department All Deputy Comptroller -do-
Pay Band-3, Grade of Principal in the rank of and Auditor General
Pay of Rs. 5400, Pay Accountant General Principal Accountant or Additional Deputy
Band-2, Grade Pay of or Accountant General or Accountant Comptroller and
Rs. 5400, Rs. 4800, General or Officer General or Officer of Auditor General
Rs. 4600 or corres- of equivalent rank equivalent rank in the
ponding thereof in the office of the Office of the Compt-
Comptroller and roller and Auditor
Auditor General of General of India
India
24. In the present case on hand, as the petitioner was a Senior Audit
Officer (Commercial) and as per the contention of the respective
counsel who contends that as per the Government Gazette Notification,
dated 20.04.2012, which was issued by the President clearly outlining
that the appointing Authority for Senior Audit Officers are Officers of
the rank of Principal Accountant General or Accountant General or
those of equivalent rank (Additional Secretary or Joint Secretary). In
the present case, the charge sheet as also the order of punishment
dated 30.08.2016 have been passed by the Director General
(Commercial) who otherwise is an Officer of the rank of Additional
Secretary. Considering Rule 12 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and taking
into consideration the Government Gazette Notification, dated
20.04.2012, there is no force in the contention of petitioner insofar as
the order of punishment being issued by an incompetent Officer.
25. Though the petitioner claims himself to be a Group A officer from
2009 onwards, but on perusal of records, it would reveal that the post
which the petitioner occupied was brought in the category of Group A
only vide order dated 14.06.2019 by way of office memorandum issued
by the Ministry of Finance, wherein it was said that since the accounts
officers and senior audit officers are being classified under Group 'A'
w.e.f. 09.04.2009 by the date when this office memorandum that was
issued on 14.06.2019, the petitioner had already been subjected to
penalty vide order dated 30.08.2016 itself. Thus, for all practical
purposes, till the date on which the penalty was issued i.e. on
30.08.2016, he was otherwise in the department considered as a Group
'B' officer.
26. If we read the aforesaid contents of, firstly the notification dated
20.04.2012, which provides for the details of the officers who could
initiate disciplinary proceedings and who could the appellate authority
be, it would be amply clear that the disciplinary proceedings in the
instant case as has been reflected in the preceding paragraphs was
issued and initiated strictly in accordance with the said notification and
the disciplinary authority also, including the authority who had issued
the charge sheet were all in terms of the Rules that were governing the
field right from the date the charge sheet was issued, till the order of
compulsory retirement was passed.
27. In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the
said objection raised by the petitioner in respect of the order of
punishment being passed by somebody lower than the authority who
had issued the appointment order is not sustainable for the reason that
the Rules itself meanwhile have got amended and came into force way
back in the year 2012 itself and once when the Rules stand amended
and came into force, it is the amended Rules which would automatically
become applicable. Thus, the said issue stands decided against the
petitioner.
28. Coming to the second ground that is raised by the petitioner i.e.
"the disciplinary action and the proceedings being with mala fides and
was result of a biased attitude of the department against the
petitioner", what needs to be considered is, admittedly the petitioner
stood transferred from Hyderabad to Maharashtra which he did not
comply with. He had challenged the said order of transfer before all the
legal forums available to him and at all levels he ultimately failed.
Though, initially there seems to be an interim protection granted by the
High Court, but later on the said interim protection stood vacated and
the writ petition stood disposed of and which was affirmed in all the
appellate stages.
29. Another aspect which is revealed is, before the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated, the Department had issued numerous
notices to the petitioner asking him and directing him to report for duty
at the earliest, which too, the petitioner did not comply with. In the
process, the department was left with no other option but to initiate
disciplinary proceedings in the teeth of admitted factual matrix of the
petitioner having not joined the transferred place and subsequently, he
also having failed before the Tribunal as also before the High Court.
Still, thereafter, he did not comply with the order for a considerable
period of time. The action thus initiated on the disciplinary front cannot
be found fault with. In view of the same, the said ground also stands
decided against the petitioner.
30. As regards the third ground of not being given a fair opportunity
of hearing during the disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner being
denied material documents in the course of the departmental enquiry,
it is necessary to see the disciplinary proceedings, particularly the
proceedings before the Enquiry Officer. Right from the stage of
issuance of charge sheet, the department has been repeatedly
approaching the petitioner by sending notices and numerous reminders,
firstly to give response to the charge memo and secondly, to enter
appearance before the Enquiry Officer and defend his case with a
liberty of taking help from a defence assistant and subsequently even
during the enquiry proceedings the petitioner did now show any serious
efforts in contesting the departmental enquiry on its merits in spite of
being served with the notice of the departmental proceedings. In spite
of best of efforts being made by the Enquiry Officer in providing
sufficient time to avail the opportunity of defence and also to ensure
that he contests the departmental proceedings to disprove the
allegations so far as the charges are concerned, went in vain as the
petitioner at no point of time did conduct himself seriously before the
Enquiry Officer trying to disprove the charges leveled against him and
also to prove his innocence. In view of the same, the said ground
raised by the petitioner also stands decided against the petitioner as he
has not been able to produce any strong material to substantiate the
contention that he has raised.
31. Coming to the last ground that the petitioner has raised as to
"the Tribunal committing an error in dismissing the O.A. in spite of the
department had not filed their Counter before the Tribunal in the
absence of anything in rebuttal to the averments made in the petition
before the Tribunal and the O.A. ought not to have been dismissed by
the Tribunal", there is no strong ground to interdict the disciplinary
action for the reason that since the O.A. was filed by the petitioner
himself, it was for the petitioner to have from the materials available in
the O.A. to establish that the action on the part of the department was
illegal or contrary to the Rules.
32. A plain reading of the contents of O.A. and the pleadings made by
the petitioner therein was in itself sufficient for the Tribunal to go into
the merits of the case and decide the issues raised by the petitioner,
and if the Tribunal has decided the matter based upon the materials
available in the O.A., it cannot be held that the Tribunal has
misconducted itself or has committed an error of law in deciding the
O.A. against the petitioner that too in spite of there being no counter
from the department. It need not always be a case where the counter
having not been filed would mean that the case of the applicant /
petitioner has to be blindly accepted in toto without appreciating the
merits of the case.
33. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion
that the petitioner has not made out a strong case calling for an
interference to the impugned order of compulsory retirement, neither
has he been able to make out a case to hold that the order of the
Tribunal dated 03.06.2019, in O.A.No.1154 of 2018, to be bad in law.
The writ petition, therefore, in the given factual matrix of the case
stands dismissed. No costs.
34. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
Date: 26.09.2025
Lrkm / GSD
