The Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge to the Central Administrative Tribunal's order quashing an enhanced penalty in a Service Matters case. The court held that the Head of Department could not exercise revisional power over his own adjudication as the sole Appellate Authority under CCS (CCA) Rules.
No relief; Civil Writ Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R-13
UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Bhagwan Swaroop Shukla, Adv.
versus
DAYA SHANKAR ..... Respondent Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J. ( ORAL )
Page 1 of 5
WP (C) 4142/2002
fro journey for self and his four family members to visit New Delhi in December, 1997. The respondent submitted a LTC claim for self of performing to and fro journey and for four of his family members for outgoing journey on 19.01.1998. The claim was paid to him. He again submitted LTC claim of Rs.6,140/- on 25.04.1998 in respect of his four family members for inward journey showing therein that his four family members travelled in AC 3TIER class of Rajdhani Express from Delhi to Gauhati. On conducting an inquiry, Executive Engineer found that no such journey was performed by the members of the family of the respondent. Due to establishment of false claim, recovery with penal interest was effected from the respondent.
Page 2 of 5
WP (C) 4142/2002
the order of the Revisional Authority dated 23.07.2001, enhancing the penalty, was quashed. Reliance was placed on Rule 29 (1) (v) of CCS (CCA) Rules and a judgment of Division Bench of this court in “Kailash Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1985 (1) SLR 24.
may at any time, either on his or its own motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and revise
Page 3 of 5
WP (C) 4142/2002
any order made under these rules or under the rules repealed by Rule 34 from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred or from which no appeal is allowed, after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary
…………………………………………………………...... Provided further that no power of revision shall be exercised by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, Member (Personnel), Postal Services Board, Adviser (Human Resources Department), Department of Telecommunications or the Head of Department, as the case may be, unless –
(i) the authority which made the order in appeal, or
(ii) the authority to which an appeal would lie, where no appeal has been preferred, is subordinate to him.
in Kailash Prasad Singh (supra) and it was held that if the Head of the Department is also the Appellate Authority, he cannot be said to be subordinate to himself and in such eventuality, review could be exercised by some authority higher than Head of the Department. Relevant extract of Para No. 8 is as under: -
………… Second proviso to Rule 29 clearly says that no power of review shall be exercised by the head of the department unless the authority to which an appeal would lie where no appeal is preferred is subordinate to him (view Sub-clause ii). Thus, merely being a Head of the department is not sufficient by itself to exercise a power of review. What has further to be seen is whether the Head of the department is not the appellate authority) can not be said to be subordinate to himself. In such eventuality, review could be exercised by some authority higher than the Head of the department i.e. Director, CBI……………The object of second proviso rule 29 is to provide that though the Head of department can exercise
Page 4 of 5
WP (C) 4142/2002
the power of review, it is only in those cases where the appellate authority is subordinate to the former.”
VINOD GOEL, J.
G. S. SISTANI, J.
DECEMBER 07, 2016 “sk”
Page 5 of 5
WP (C) 4142/2002
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the second proviso to Rule 29(1)(v) of CCS (CCA) Rules prohibits the Head of the Department from exercising revisional power when he acts as the sole Appellate Authority.
Whether the Tribunal was correct in quashing the order enhancing penalty from censure to reduction of sans proper application of the second proviso.
Whether the Appellate Authority can exercise revisional power when no appeal was preferred and no authority exists to which an appeal would lie.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kailash Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. (1985 (1) SLR 24.)Referred¶10
Kailash Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1985 (1) SLR 24.
Central Administrative Tribunal, OA No. 2545/2001Referred¶9
OA No. 2545/2001
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India & Another
Daya Shankar
Vinod Goel
G.S. Sistani
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
