AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
On the charge of acceptance of illegal gratification while working as Upper Division Clerk in accounts section of the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore, during the period from March 1994 to September 1994, disciplinary action commenced against the petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner has committed gross mis-conduct in as much as he failed to take immediate action to process the advance application in Form-31, submitted by Provident Fund account holder one Sri. A.E. Siddaiah and thereby delayed his claim with an ulterior motive of taking illegal gratification from him. Since the above act of petitioner has exhibited lack of integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of E.P.F. Organization and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which is mutatis mutandis applicable to employees of E.P.F. Organization, charge sheet came to be served on the petitioner. Petitioner denied the charges framed against him. Consequently, enquiry was ordered to be conducted to prove the veracity of the charges. After due procedure, the enquiry officer gave his report on 03.08.1998 stating that the charges are proved beyond doubt. During the subsistence of enquiry, criminal prosecution was also launched against petitioner in respect of acceptance of illegal gratification under the provisions of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in C.C. No. 61/1995. The trial Court convicted the petitioner by the judgment and order dated 08.07.1998 and imposed sentence of imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Pursuant to such order of conviction passed by the trial Court, the petitioner was dismissed from service, as per order dated 19.07.1999 of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore, in exercise of powers under Rule 8 of The Employees'' Provident Fund Staff (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 704/1998 before this Court. This Court allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of conviction and consequently, acquitted the petitioner by judgment dated 19.06.2004. Thereafter, order of re-instatement was passed on 13.04.2005 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Karnataka. It is made clear in the very order that the re-instatement is without pre-judice to the departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner on the alleged mis-conduct by the petitioner. The departmental proceeding was completed against the petitioner and the disciplinary authority has held that the charges leveled against petitioner are proved. Thus in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 8 of The Employees'' Provident Fund Staff (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner imposed penalty of reduction to the lower stage in the time scale of SSA (Social Security Assistant) to the level of Rs. 4,000/- for a period of two years on the petitioner. It is relevant to note here itself that Upper Division Clerk is now re-designated as Social Security Assistant.
As against the order of disciplinary authority imposing penalty of reduction to the lower stage in the time scale of Social Security Assistant, petitioner filed departmental appeal before the appellate authority which came to be dismissed on 18.03.2008. Consequently, the order of the disciplinary authority is confirmed by the appellate authority. Questioning both orders, petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in application No. 251/2009 which came to be dismissed by the impugned order on 15.02.2012
Sri Chandrakanth R. Goulay, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 704/1998 has acquitted the petitioner Honorably and therefore, it was not open for the disciplinary authority, as well as, appellate authority to conclude that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sulekh Chand and Sulek Chand vs. Commissioner of Police and others in Civil Appeal Nos. 7063-64/1994 (decided on 30.09.1994) submitted that once the acquittal was on merits, necessary consequences would be that delinquent is entitled to re-instatement as if there is no blot on service and the need for departmental enquiry is obviated. In other words, petitioner submits that departmental enquiry should not have been continued after acquittal of petitioner by criminal court Honorably. He submits that after the order of acquittal passed by this Court in Crl.A. No. 704/1998, petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to comment on the order of acquittal in support of his case. Since no opportunity was granted, the whole proceeding vitiates. According to him, order of the disciplinary authority is not a speaking order.
Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, learned Advocate on behalf of respondent argued in support of orders of the authority as well as order of the Central Administrative Tribunal by contending that disciplinary action is independent of criminal case and since the petitioner is acquitted on technical grounds, he cannot be allowed to make use of such an order of acquittal in departmental enquiry.
Admittedly, petitioner was convicted by the criminal court in CC. No. 61/1995 on 08.07.1998 and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay fine. Based on the said order of conviction and sentence, petitioner was dismissed from service by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 19.07.1999 in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 8 of The Employees'' Provident Fund Staff (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. At that point of time, departmental proceeding was still pending consideration. During subsistence of departmental proceeding, the order of conviction is made. Thus, it is clear that purely based on the order of conviction only, the petitioner was imposed with penalty of dismissal from service and not on other factors. Subsequently, as aforementioned, petitioner came to be acquitted by order of this Court in Crl.A. No. 704/1998 dated 19.06.2004. Pursuant to such order of acquittal passed by the High Court in Crl.A. No. 704/1998, the petitioner came to be re-instated to service on 13.04.2005 which means the order of dismissal was recalled and petitioner was put back into service after the order of acquittal passed by this Court. The very order dated 13.04.2005 re-instating the petitioner makes it clear that such order of re-instatement is without pre-judice to departmental enquiry pending against petitioner on the alleged mis-conduct. Thus aforementioned facts make it amply clear that both the orders, i.e., order of dismissal as well as re-instatement were passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner purely on the basis of the orders passed by the criminal court. Such orders are not relating to the disciplinary action to be taken in departmental proceeding. It is also clear that even at the time of reinstatement on 13.04.2005 disciplinary proceeding was in progress and such re-instatement was without pre-judice to departmental enquiry against petitioner. Thus it is not open to the petitioner to contend that disciplinary action should not have been continued against petitioner after order of acquittal passed in criminal appeal.
The petitioner had raised contention of his acquittal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority on considering the entire material on record, passed order dated 18.03.2008 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. While dismissing the appeal, appellate authority observed thus:
There is no double jeopardy. The penalty of dismissal vide order dated 19.07.1999 was based on the conviction order of C.B.I. Sessions Court. Consequently he was reinstated into the service on his acquittal by the Hon''ble High Court on technical grounds. The Disciplinary Authority had clearly informed in the order dated 13.04.2005 that the reinstatement is without prejudice to the departmental proceedings pending against him. Whereas, the appellant was penalized vide order dated 26.09.2006 based on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for the alleged misconduct which is proved as per the inquiry report in the departmental proceedings initiated against him.
The Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka vide its order dated 19.06.2004 had acquitted the appellant on technical grounds. Whereas, it is proved from the inquiry report that the appellant has failed to intimate the member, the fact that the application has been returned on 18.04.1994. No replies had been sent to the letters received from the member. Had the communication to the letters written by Sri A.E. Siddaiah been replied, the member would not have suffered. It clearly shows negligence on the part of the appellant in responding to the member grievance.
From the aforementioned, it is clear that appellate authority after considering the judgment of this Court on facts, concluded that acquittal is on technical grounds. It is also relevant to note that during the course of impugned order the Tribunal also on facts has held that order of acquittal is not Honorable acquittal. Thus there is consistent finding of facts arrived at by the appellate authority and Tribunal to the effect that petitioner is not acquitted Honorably, but acquitted based on technicality. The judgment passed in criminal appeal No. 704/1998 is not produced before this Court. The fact remains that the appellate authority as well as Tribunal on going through material, have concurrently concluded that order of acquittal is based on technicality and not, on merits
The disciplinary authority ought to have passed order in detail. Though the order of disciplinary authority is not in detailed form, it considers major aspects of the case. However, the appellate authority has taken into consideration each and every aspect of the matter and has met each and every point raised by the petitioner before coming to the conclusion. Thus, it can be safely said that order of the authorities are just and proper. Since the departmental proceedings were not completed even at the time of acquittal of the petitioner, it was open for the petitioner to make use of the order of acquittal before the disciplinary authority. It seems, petitioner did not make use of such opportunity. However, as aforementioned, the appellate authority as well as Tribunal on going through material on record have held as aforementioned that order of acquittal is based on technical grounds and it is not the case of Honorable acquittal. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere. Petition is dismissed.