S.N. Sreenivasa Rao vs Central Silk Board

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.—The appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 46237 of 2003 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition.

The appellant is an employee of the 1st respondent-Central Silk Board, Disciplinary action was initiated against him by the respondents and Annexure-A Articles of Charges and Statement of Imputations dated 04.11.1991 were served on the appellant. Since the explanation submitted by the appellant was not satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted in the matter. Though the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were not proved against the appellant, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and held that the appellant was guilty and imposed the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect. Though the appellant filed appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 13088 of 1995 challenging the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court as per Annexure-B judgment dated 21.07.1999. In Annexure-B judgment, this Court found that the enquiry proceedings against the appellant did not conform to the requirements of notions of enquiry that is contemplated in law under the relevant rules. Hence the entire enquiry proceedings were quashed with a direction that the respondent must conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with law, if they so choose and take a proper decision thereon. Pursuant to Annexure-B judgment, the respondents issued Annexure-D memorandum dated 26.05.2000 contending the Articles of Charges and the Statement of Imputations. Since the explanation of the appellant was not satisfactory, the respondents conducted an enquiry in which the Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of the charges. Accepting the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority issued Annexure-K order dated 22.03.2002 imposing the minor penalty of withholding of one annual increment of pay with cumulative effect. Against Annexure-K order, the appellant filed Annexure-L appeal which was dismissed as per Annexure-M order dated 10.06.2003 of the 1st respondent. Thereupon the appellant filed the present Writ Petition No. 46237 of 2003 challenging Annexure-K and M orders. After considering the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as per the order impugned in this writ appeal.

Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having considered the materials placed on record, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal.

The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 which admittedly applied to the appellant did not contemplate a second enquiry. In support, of his contention, learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in K.R. Deb Vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, . In the case before the Supreme Court, in the first enquiry the Enquiry Officer found that the charges were not proved against the delinquent employee and instead of differing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and arriving at his own finding on the basis of independent assessment and appreciation of evidence, the Disciplinary Authority viz., the Collector of Central Excise issued a fresh order in supersession of the earlier order directing an enquiry and appointing an Enquiry Officer and appointed another Enquiry Officer to inquire afresh into the charges framed against the delinquent employee. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court held that there is no provision in Rule 15 of the Central Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 for completely setting aside the previous enquiries on the ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Supreme Court observed that the Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9. The above decision of the Supreme Court has no application to the facts of this case. In this case, the Disciplinary Authority considered the Enquiry Report but disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and on an independent assessment and appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the charges were proved against the appellant. It is after noting such a finding by the Disciplinary Authority himself that the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. Though the said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority, this Court in Annexure-B judgment held that the enquiry proceedings did not conform to the requirements of the relevant rules and accordingly quashed the entire enquiry proceedings and directed that the respondent must conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. Thus this is not a case where the Disciplinary Authority ordered a fresh enquiry or a second enquiry because he did not like the report of the Enquiry Officer.

This is a case where this Court on a writ petition filed by the appellant quashed the entire enquiry proceedings and directed the respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. In view of Annexure-B judgment, the action of the respondents in conducting a fresh enquiry and passing appropriate orders thereon was perfectly legal and valid. The action of the respondent was authorised by Annexure-B judgment. The respondents have only complied with the orders and directions in Annexure-B judgement. It is true that, since the defect pointed out by the learned Single Judge in Annexure-B judgment was that no notice was issued to the appellant and no hearing was given to him before the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and proceeded to impose the penalty, the learned Single Judge could have quashed the proceedings from the stage of imposing the penalty by the Disciplinary Authority and directed the Disciplinary Authority to proceed afresh from the stage of issuing notice to the appellant. In that event the respondents would not have been justified in issuing a fresh Articles of Charges and appointing a new Enquiry Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge chose to quash the entire enquiry proceedings and direct the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. The said order of the learned Single Judge was accepted by the appellant and he did not challenge the Annexure-B judgment at least to the extent it directed fresh enquiry. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondents erred in issuing fresh Articles of Charges and conducting a fresh enquiry cannot be accepted. It is also to be noticed that the allegations contained in Annexure-D memorandum are substantially the same as the allegations contained in the original Articles of Charges served on the appellant. In other words, in the second enquiry proceedings no fresh allegation or charge was made against the appellant.

The only other contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the incident occurred in the year 1990 and hence the respondents could not have conducted an enquiry after a period of ten years. There is no merit in this contention also. The disciplinary action was in fact initiated against the appellant as per Annexure-A memorandum dated 04.11.1991. Hence there was no delay in initiating the disciplinary action against the appellant in respect of the alleged misconduct committed on 01.12.1990. The said disciplinary action culminated in order dated 28.06.1994 imposing the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect The said order dated 28.06.1994 was confirmed by Appellate Authority. The orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were challenged in Writ Petition No. 13088 of 1995 which was disposed of by this Court on 21.07.1999 directing the respondents to conduct fresh enquiry in accordance with law, if they so choose and take a proper decision thereon. Pursuant to Annexure-B judgment dated 21.07.1999 the respondents issued Annexure-D memorandum of charges dated 26.05.2000. Thus there was no delay on the part of the respondents in taking disciplinary action against the appellant. In the light of the events referred to above, a fresh enquiry could not have been avoided by the respondents. We do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents. We also find that the action taken by the respondents is not in any way unjust or improper.

In the above circumstances, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. There is no merit in the writ appeal and the writ appeal is dismissed.