Court quashed CAT order setting aside penalty imposed on a Public Prosecutor for falsely claiming LTC reimbursement using cancelled ticket copies. Writ allowed; matter remitted to authority for consideration of reduction.
Writ allowed; order dated 01.05.2015 set aside; respondent permitted to approach competent authority for penalty reduction.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.03.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No.7459 of 2016
Vs.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A.No.310/00549 of 2014, and to quash the same.
For Petitioners: Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr.Rabu Manohar, Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel
For 1st Respondent: Mr.L.Swaminathan
O R D E R
(Order of the Court made by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
Challenging the order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.310/00549/2014, the Union of India, Department of Personnel and Training and the Central Bureau of Investigation have filed this Writ Petition.
2.1. The 1st respondent viz. K.Suryanarayana, while functioning as Public Prosecutor, Central Bureau of Investigation (BS & FC), Bangalore, intended to proceed to his home town Kakinada along with this family members by availing LTC facility for the Block year 2008 to meet his ailing brother. He booked tickets for both onward and return journey, i.e. on 31.12.2008 and 03.01.2009, respectively. However, before commencing the journey, he received a message that the condition of his ailing brother was deteriorating. Hence, he cancelled the tickets and proceeded to Kakinada by car. After returning from Kakinada, his son was subjected to Tuberculosis and was under continuous treatment including hospitalisation. To meet out hospital expenses, the 1st respondent applied GPF Advance of Rs.60,000/- together with Medical Bills for Rs.1,414/- and LTC claim of Rs.10,435/- enclosing the xerox copy of the tickets declaring that the original tickets were surrendered to the Ticket Collector. Though the claim amount was sanctioned, a preliminary inquiry was conducted on 23.08.2008 and the 1st respondent clearly admitted the fact that due to absentmindedness, depression and confused state of mind on account of his minor son's treatment, he had submitted the claim.
2.2. While so, he was issued a Memorandum of Charge, after a lapse of three years on 04.10.2011, to which he submitted his written explanation on 04.10.2011 highlighting the difficulties faced by him and also expressed his deep regret for the incident and prayed for taking a lenient view. However, an inquiry under Rule 14 was conducted and he submitted a letter to the Inquiring
Authority to the following effect:
“... I realized that it is my first mistake on my part and I plead guilty of the charges framed against me heartfully and I will not repeat in future. Further, I am ready to refund the claim amount of LTC as your Authority deems fit. Further, I request to show mercy and kindly give me an opportunity to explain my grievance in person before taking any final decision at your end...”
2.3. Considering the submission of the 1st respondent, the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry as follows:
“... Considering the fact that it is a first mistake committed by the Charged Officer and the submissions made by him pleading guilt, a lenient view may be taken in the matter... ”
2.4. Accordingly, a report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. However, the Deputy Secretary, UPSC advised to impose the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with further direction that the 1st respondent will not earn any increments during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments in the pay. In terms of the advise of the UPSC, the impugned order dated 24.02.2014 came to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Authority and directed the latter to take a lenient view in that issue. Relevant portion of the said order reads thus:
“7. ... From the above rule position, we are of the view that the punishment imposed on the applicant is excessive to the gravity of the charges and further we note than an Office Order has been issued on 23.05.2014 to the effect that the disputed LTC claim amount paid to the applicant has also been sought to be recovered from the applicant's pay for the month of May, 2014. 8. In the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the penalty imposed on the applicant is excessive to the gravity of the charges levelled against him. Therefore, we deem it appropriate that the ends of justice will be met if a direction is given to the Disciplinary Authority to take a lenient view by taking into consideration of the Inquiry Officer's Report together with the rule position in regard to misuse of LTC referred to above in imposing the punishment on the applicant. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.02.2014 is set aside and the Disciplinary Authority is directed to take a lenient view in the issue and pass appropriate order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
by the 1st respondent cannot be taken as a mistake due to oversight as may happen during the course of one's duty. The Rules preclude the Officer from submission of bills with cancelled tickets, whatsoever his state of mind was at that time. It is his further contention that the Tribunal had failed to discuss in the impugned judgment as to how the punishment imposed on the 1st respondent is excessive to the gravity of the charges.
disproportionate to the gravity of the charges and hence the Tribunal arrived at a just and reasonable conclusion of setting aside the said penalty order and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to take a lenient view in this issue and pass appropriate orders within two months. It is his contention that without passing an order within two months as directed by the Tribunal, the act of the writ petitioners in approaching this Court by challenging the said order dated 01.05.2015, clearly exposes that they have got scant respect for the order of this Court.
pendency -
(i) the withheld claim will be admitted; and
(ii) any LTC facility fell due but not allowed will be allowed as additional set(s) in the future blocks of years irrespective of the provisions relating to lapsing of
unavailed LTC. Such additional set(s) also should be availed before the date of superannuation.
(b) if found guilty ---
(i) the withheld claim will be disallowed;
(ii) next two sets – one to Home Town and one to any place in India – will be forfeited; and
(iii)in case of grave misuse, the Competent Authority may disallow even more than two sets.
in addition to any penalty under disciplinary rules.”
The Writ is allowed with the above direction. No costs.
Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.6676 of 2016 is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
aeb
To:
The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench, High Court Campus,
Chennai 600 104.
1 cc to Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, Advocate, sr.18824
1 cc to Mr.L.Swaminathan, Advocate, sr.18786
W.P.No.7459 of 2016
rsy co
kra 11.05.2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Supreme Court of the Central Administrative Tribunal was correct to set aside a penalty of reduction in pension imposed on a Public Prosecutor for submitting LTC claims using cancelled tic
Whether the act of cancelling travel tickets and submitting photocopies for reimbursement constitutes mere absent-mindedness or deliberate misuse warranting penalty.
Whether the disciplinary authority was correct in rejecting the request for a lenient view regarding the misuse of Leave Travel Concession (LTC).
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Union of India
K.Suryanarayana
The Central Bureau of Investigation
The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench
R.SUDHAKAR
S.VAIDYANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
