AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Phaneendra, J. - The case in brief is, during the relevant period, when the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant Director of Fisheries at Chitradurga, Articles of charges were served upon him alleging misconduct on five counts. In spite of giving opportunity by the Enquiry Officer, he has not contested the said proceedings and ultimately the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 16.12.1998. Though the second show-cause notice was issued, the petitioner has not submitted his statement of objections. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of reversion for a period of three years and I has also held that the Petitioner is not entitled for any promotion for a period of three years. It is also stated in the said order that he is not entitled for yearly increments during the punishment period i.e., for a period of three years.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short, ''Tribunal''). The Tribunal in Application No. 6216/2001 by its order dated 16.09.2014 confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and consequently dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this court.
As could be seen from the Articles of Charges and the notice issued to the petitioner, there were as many as five charges levelled against him as per the charge-sheet dated 22.08.1995, which are as follows:
(i) The petitioner has not returned the FD Certificate, Pass Books and Cheque Books to the Institution since when he was working at Bidar.
(ii) He has absented himself for duties from 15.10.1993 to 31.10.1993 when he was working at Bidar as Chief Executive Officer, Fisheries Department and in respect of that, he has drawn the salary of 16 days to the extent of Rs. 2,990/- and he has not paid-back the said amount.
(iii) From 01.12.1993, he has absented himself till he was transferred to the Senior Assistant Director of Fisheries, Chitradurga.
(iv) From 10.05.1993, till he was posted to Chitradurga as Senior Assistant Director, he has not done any work and during that time, he ill-treated and harassed the subordinates, who were working under him and also committed various illegalities.
(v) The petitioner when he was working as Chief Executive Officer, Fisheries Department at Bidar, he has taken the salary advance, travelling advance and cash, in total of Rs. 5,600/- and he has not repaid the same to the department.
On all the above said charges, the enquiry was held and he was found guilty and he was punished accordingly for the charges as noted above.
On perusal of the records, in spite of issuance of notice to him, he has not appeared either before the Enquiry Officer or before the Disciplinary Authority and contested the proceedings. Though he submits that he has submitted his objections before the Disciplinary Authority, the same has not been considered.
Be that as it may. The fact remains that the notices have been issued and the Petitioner has not contested the enquiry proceedings. But, as could be seen from the charges levelled against him, according to us, the charges are not so severe in nature. It is clear from the records that the petitioner has discharged his duties in the places he was posted, after he left Bidar. Almost all the allegations are made during the period when he was working at Bidar. The alleged charges of non-return of the Cheque Book, Pass Book and the non-refund of certain advances and also absenting himself from duties for some days can not be said to be so serious as to invite the punishment of reversion. There is no material to show that he was harassing subordinate officials. Though it is stated that there were several charges levelled against him earlier and he was found guilty etc., But, those aspects have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal or the Disciplinary Authority to impose such punishment. There is no material placed before the Appellate Tribunal to show that the said aspects have been considered by the Disciplinary Authority.
Looking to the above said circumstances, for the above noted mis-conducts, the punishment of reversion for a period of three years, in our opinion, is excessive and it is not proportionate to the proved mis-conduct alleged against the petitioner. We are of the opinion that, if six increments of the petitioner are with-held with cumulative effect, that would be appropriate and commensurate with the proved mis-conduct. Hence, we are of the opinion, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the misconduct proved against the petitioner with that of other mitigating circumstance that, the petitioner is retired pensioner having family etc., but disproportionate punishment has been ordered against him. Hence, we modify the order of the Tribunal and proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is partly allowed. The order of the Tribunal impugned herein insofar as it relates to imposition of penalty, stands modified.
(ii) It is ordered that, six increments with cumulative effect are directed to be with-held and the amount to that extent is ordered to be adjusted from the amount to be payable to the petitioner by virtue of his retirement, by re-fixing the salary and pension of the petitioner, as on the date of his retirement.