A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Mr. Justice V.M. Velumani and Mrs. Justice R. Hemalatha upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision in a case where a government official was charged with (a) unauthorized absence from duty and, (b) observing hunger strike in favor of Sri-Lankan Tamil and criticizing the Congress for rolling out certain policies pertaining to Indo-Sri Lankan Peace Accord. The court held that as a government officer, a person should refrain from openly making remarks in favor of or against any specific government policy.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner joined the Customs Department as Appraising Officer in 1993 and was promoted to Indian Revenue Service in the year 2003. He was posted as Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs initially at Salem and later in Mumbai. On 18.06.2009, he was issued with a charge memo prior to which he was placed under suspension in February 2009 itself. There were two charges against him one pertaining to unauthorized absence from duty from 05.01.2007 and the second one pertaining to observing a hunger strike in his native town for seven days from 3rd February 2009 to 9th February 2009 in support of Sri Lankan Tamils and also for writing a letter to the President of All India Congress Party criticizing the policies of the Congress Government, especially regarding the Indo-Sri Lankan Peace Accord. After a detailed process of inquiry in which a reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner, final orders dated 08.08.2014 was issued inflicting the penalty of pay reduction by three stages for a period of three years. The petitioner's representation dated 25.06.2015 addressed to the President of India did not yield any response and his subsequent representation dated 16.04.2019 citing certain procedural lapses on the part of the employer also remained unresponded. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also obtained certain information under Right to Information (RTI) based on which he had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA.1097/2019 in which M.A.458/2019 was filed for condonation of delay. The delay was condoned. However, O.A. No. 1097/2019 was dismissed as devoid of merits. Challenging the order dated 30.03.2021 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, in O.A.No.310/01097/2019, the present writ petition is filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were erroneous in the sense that while approval for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him was obtained from the Union Finance Minister who is the Disciplinary Authority, no such separate approval was obtained for issuance of charge memo. This, according to the petitioner, had vitiated the entire proceedings and therefore the charge memo itself is liable to be quashed. The petitioner further cited Union of India & others vs. B.V. Gopinath 2014 (1) SCC 351, wherein the court held that the approval granted by the finance minister for initiation of departmental proceedings would not amount to approval of the charge memo.
It was also his contention that the two stages, one of approval for initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the second for approval for framing of charges, are prerequisites for any disciplinary action and the absence of any one of the two prerequisites makes the entire exercise defective. Furthermore, his contention was that neither his resignation in 2009 nor his application for Voluntary Retirement in 2017 was accepted by the respondents putting him in distress, and also that he has been denied promotion for more than 10 years making it appear like a 'witch hunting' for his only fault of expressing his sentiments supporting his fellow Tamils in Sri Lanka.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner as a Central Government employee had contravened the Conduct Rules which automatically invited the major penalty proceedings. According to him, the petitioner being a Government Servant took part in politics, participated in demonstrations, strike and also criticized the Government policies which cannot be taken lightly. He further contended that there was a proper inquiry conducted affording a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to defend himself. The Inquiry authority in the report dated 31.03.2011 had held the allegation which contravened Rule 7 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (participation in strike) as not proved which in itself would go to show that there was a fair trial. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the ruling in Union of India & others vs. B.V. Gopinath 2014 (1) SCC 351, relied upon by the petitioner has no relevance in the instant case as both the approval for major penalty proceedings as well as for the issuance of charge memo were very much a part of the note put up before the Hon'ble Finance Minister, who had approved it. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that such objections raised by the petitioner after a lapse of more than a decade is clearly an afterthought, that too when he has already undergone the punishment.
Observations of the Court:
After perusing all the relevant records, the court observed that it was abundantly clear that the petitioner raised the objection only after the enquiry proceedings were over and after he desired to opt for voluntary retirement. The court further remarked that the Conduct Rules of any Government servant clearly prohibit being a member of any political party or openly expressing support or opposing any Government Policies. As per the court, the petitioner showed his empathy towards his fellow Srilankan Tamil crisis, but as a government servant, he ought to have restrained himself in expressing his personal opinion. The court accepted the respondent’s argument that the Hon'ble Finance Minister as the Competent Authority had approved the initiation of disciplinary proceedings for major penalty under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 in which the draft charge memo was also approved. In such circumstances, the judges decided that the petitioner erred in making a claim that there was no approval for the issuance of a charge memo.
The decision of the Court:
The order given by the Central Administrative Tribunal was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: B. Balamurugan vs The Secretary and another
Coram: Mr. Justice V.M. Velumani and Mrs. Justice R. Hemalatha
Case No.: W.P. No. 1884 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. B. Balamurugan (Party in Person)
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. V. Sundareshwaran
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments