IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:19/10/2005
CORAM
THE HONOUABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KRISHNAN
W.P.No.33090 OF 2005
A.M.Christy ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.Union of India
Rep. by Lt. General,
Directorate General Military
Training General Staff Branch,
Army Headquarters,
New Delhi - 110 011.
2.Union of India,
Rep. by The Lt. General,
Commandant,
DSSC/Est/1566/CMD/AMC,
Raksha Seva Staff College
Defence Services Staff College,
Wellington (Nilgiris) - 643 231.
3.Union of India,
Rep. by Lt. Col. Thiru.T.Nandakumar,
Inquiry Officer,
Defence Services Staff College,
Wellington - 643 231. ...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Periyaswamy
For Respondent : NIL
:O R D E R
(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY P.SATHASIVAM,J.)
Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai
Bench, dated 18.08.2005 made in O.A.No.1157 of 2004, confirming the order of
the 1st respondent dated 27.10.2004 as well as 2nd respondent dated
04.09.2002, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash those
orders.
2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:-
(a) According to him, he was serving in the Army and discharged on
31.03.1994 from military service. After retirement as an Exservicemen, he
joined the Civil Employment as Driver under the 2nd respondent, namely, the
Raksha Seva Staff College, Wellington (Nilgiris), as Driver during February
1997. The 2nd respondent issued a charge memo dated 04.01.2002 stating that
on 03.01.2002 at 17.45 hours, he was found intoxicated and so certified by a
qualified Medical Officer. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Not
satisfied with the said explanation, the 2nd respondent appointed Lt. Col.
T. Nandakumar as Enquiry Officer, 3rd respondent herein. The petitioner was
permitted to engage one R.P.K.Venkata Raman as defence Assistant. During the
course of enquiry, after a particular stage, the petitioner boycotted the
enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the 2 nd respondent
holding that the charge leveled against the petitioner is proved. The 2nd
respondent by his proceedings dated 04.09.2002, passed an order imposing the
penalty of compulsory retirement from service under Rule 11 (vii) of Central
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short CCS
(CCA) Rules).
(b) Against the said order, he preferred an appeal before the
Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, without affording an
opportunity to the petitioner, modified the punishment as one of removal from
service, instead of compulsory retirement passed by the 2nd respondent. The
said order was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal in
O.A.No.523 of 2003 and by order dated 30.10.2003, the Tribunal, set aside the
said order and directed the 1st respondent to issue notice to the petitioner
before modifying the punishment as one of removal from service. Thereafter,
the 1st respondent issued a notice calling for an explanation to the
petitioner, as to why the punishment should not be enhanced. The petitioner
submitted a detailed representation. But the 1st respondent, without
appreciation of the fact, passed an order dismissing the appeal and modified
the punishment by removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner preferred O.A.No.1157 of 2004 before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and ultimately the said appeal was also
dismissed by order dated 18.08.2005. Questioning the same, the petitioner has
filed the present writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. After taking us through the impugned order of the Tribunal and the
other proceedings, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity in the
enquiry and in any event the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities failed to
note that the punishments imposed on earlier occasions are minor.
5. On going through the relevant materials, orders of Original and
Appellate Authorities as well as the impugned order of the Tribunal, we are
unable to accept the said contention for the following reasons. It is not in
dispute that the petitioner/applicant is an Exserviceman and he was discharged
on 31.03.1994 and thereafter, he was reemployed as Civilian MT Driver at
Defence Services College, Wellington ( Nilgiris) on 11.02.1997. The said post
was later re-designated as Civilian Motor Driver (Ordinary Grade) during 1999.
The charge against the applicant/petitioner was that, he was found intoxicated
at 17.45 hours on 03.01.2002. The fact that he was in a position of
intoxication which was also certified by a qualified Medical Officer. Though
the petitioner has submitted his explanation, since the same was not
acceptable, an enquiry was conducted by appointing Lt. Col. T. Nandakumar
as Enquiry Officer.
6. It is further seen that though the petitioner participated in the
enquiry, the materials placed show that he stopped attending enquiry in the
mid-way. The Enquiry Officer, based on the materials, submitted a report
holding that the charges leveled against the applicant are proved. It is also
seen that copy of the report was furnished to the applicant. The Disciplinary
Authority, after taking note of the Enquiry Proceedings, report and the
earlier antecedents of the applicant, concluded that the applicant should not
be retained in service in public interest, passed an order compulsorily
retiring him from service. Though, initially the said order was modified by
the Appellate Authority as one of the removal from service, subsequently, on
direction by the Tribunal, fresh notice was issued to the petitioner and after
considering his further explanation, the Appellate Authority, confirmed his
earlier decision and modified the punishment from compulsory retirement to
removal from service.
7. It is clear that after finding that the applicant had consumed
alcohol while he was on duty, after framing proper charges, conducting enquiry
and based on the report, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order, which was
modified by the Appellate Authority, after affording opportunity to the
petitioner. Though, it was argued that the earlier punishments are not
serious one, the particulars furnished show that the applicant is a habitual
drunkard and in his short tenure of six years of service with effect from
February 1997 to September 2002, he was awarded the following punishments for
having been found in the influence of alcohol while on duty:-
a) Warned in writing on 10.07.1997. b) Minor penalty of censure during December 1999, under Rule 11(i) of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. c) Minor penalty of with holding of one increment of pay for a period
of one year with effect from February 2002, under Rule 11 (iv) of CCS (CC&A)
Rules, 1965.
In such circumstances, it cannot be claimed that earlier punishments are not
relevant for consideration. It is not the case of the applicant that he had
unblemished service. It is also not in dispute that his job is to drive
vehicle. Though an argument was advanced that he consumed liquor late in the
evening that is at 17.45 hours, the fact remains that he was on duty even at
the relevant time. All these aspects have been considered by the Authorities
as well as the Tribunal. In the absence of any other material, we are in
agreement that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the
writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
To
1.Lt. General,
Union of India
Directorate General Military
Training General Staff Branch,
Army Headquarters, New Delhi – 110 011.
2.The Lt. General
Union of India,
Commandant,
DSSC/Est/1566/CMD/AMC,
Raksha Seva Staff College,
Wellington (Nilgiris) – 643 231.
3.Lt. Col. Thiru. T.Nandakumar
Inquiry Officer,
Union of India, Defence Services Staff College,
Wellington – 643 231.