Bisnudeo Ram vs Union of India and Others

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed in O.A. No. 245 of 2002 dated 27th January, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi whereby the petitioner''s O.A. challenging the order of punishment of compulsory retirement has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had children and they were the students and therefore, he could not vacate the quarter allotted to him on his transfer and he was granted permission to occupy the quarter up to July, 1998 which is clear from the Annexure 2 and because of that lapse on the part of the petitioner of not vacating the quarter, after July, 1998 initial order of dismissal from service was passed in departmental enquiry and the petitioner''s appeal and thereafter, mercy appeal were dismissed and then the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition which was withdrawn for challenging the order before the C.A.T., thereafter, the petitioner filed one O.A. being O.A. No. 12 of 2000 which was partly allowed and after holding the petitioner guilty for misconduct, the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority for passing appropriate order with respect to lesser punishment. After remand, order dated 30th August, 2001, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 24th December, 2001 retiring the petitioner compulsorily. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing O.A. No. 245 of 2002 which has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was permitted to occupy the quarter even after his transfer order, he did not vacate the quarter for the period from July, 1998 to September, 1999, therefore, for this, trivial mistake on the part of the petitioner, he could not have been punished to the extent of retiring him compulsorily. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the award of punishment is too harsh.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was transferred in May, 1995 and he retained the quarter till September. 1999. It is submitted that not only this, but the petitioner occupied the quarter during the pendency of departmental proceeding as well as thereafter, during the pendency of the appeal against the punishment order and therefore, the order of earlier punishment of dismissal from service which has already been reduced so as to give pensionary benefit to the petitioner cannot be said to be any order harsh in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner during the departmental proceeding.

Since the petitioner already approached the tribunal wherein the petitioner has already challenged the order holding him guilty for the misconduct wherein he failed and the matter was remanded only to award a lesser punishment, therefore, the petitioner now cannot raise the question with respect to legality of the departmental proceeding holding him guilty by raising this plea that he was not given a fair opportunity of hearing by the disciplinary authority.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner was admittedly transferred in the year 1995 and his request to occupy the quarter may have been allowed, even then, the petitioner even after the show-cause notice and departmental proceeding, even during the pendency of the appeal, did not vacate the quarter which appears to be grave misconduct of the petitioner, and therefore, was liable to be punished and we are of the view that the punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be excessive in any manner, and therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.). Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed.