V.
Padmanabham Vs. Govt. of A.P. & Ors. [2009] INSC 1295 (27 July 2009)
Judgment
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.6261 of 2005) V. Padmanabham ... Appellant Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. ... Respondents
S.B.
Sinha, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2. Appellant
herein was a Deputy Tehsildar, Director of Civil Supplies, Punganoor in the
District of Chittoor. He worked in the said capacity from 11.5.1992 to
21.1.1993. During the aforementioned period, Essential Commodities meant for
public distribution were supplied to the private parties; the price whereof is
stated to be Rs.12,46,523.60.
2.
2 He was placed under suspension on 29.1.1993. A departmental
proceeding was initiated. An enquiry officer was appointed for the said
purpose. He was found guilty in the said departmental proceedings, relying on
or on the basis whereof, an order of dismissal was passed on 21.10.1994.
3.
An appeal preferred by the appellant there against was also
dismissed.
He filed
an original application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. On
the premise that the enquiry officer was not competent to frame the charges,
the order of dismissal was set aside.
4.
The State filed a writ petition thereagainst before the High
Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said judgment and order of the
Tribunal was set aside, directing :
"We
have considered the contentions of the learned counsel with reference to the
APCS (CC & A) Rules. As can be seen from the Rules, appointment of Enquiry
Officer comes into play only after the explanation is filed to the charge sheet
and decision is to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority to conduct further
enquiry.
In the
instant case, the Enquiry Officer had himself framed the charges which goes
contrary to the Rules 20 and 21 of the APCS (CC & A) Rules.
Under
those circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of
the Tribunal, but, however, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader
that giving direction to the Department to reinstate the petitioner is only misconceived.
Admittedly, the employee was 3 under suspension prior to the order of
dismissal.
Under
those circumstances, the Tribunal ought not to have directed reinstatement of
the petitioner.
We are in
agreement with the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader. When
further action is sought to be taken in accordance with the Rules, the Tribunal
ought to have left the matter to the discretion of the authorities. Moreover,
in the instant case, the employee was already under suspension from 1993 and
the order of dismissal was set aside on the technical ground that the Enquiry
Officer was not competent to frame the charges. Under those circumstances, we
are inclined to modify the order relating to reinstatement and we direct that
1st respondent shall be deemed to have continued under suspension impugned
order."
5.
Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said
directions.
6.
Indisputably, the enquiry proceedings did not make much progress.
He was
allowed to superannuate.
It is on
the aforementioned premise, Mr. D. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant, would contend that the impugned judgment
of the High Court should be set aside and the disciplinary proceedings may not
be directed to be continued.
7.
Mr. I. Venkatanarayana, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the State, however, urged that despite superannuation of the appellant, the
4 departmental proceedings which were pending against him must be held to be
continuing in terms of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Pension Code and, thus,
there is no legal impediment in imposing any punishment withdrawing the whole
or part of the pension so as to enable the State go recover the amount which it
suffered owing to the acts of omission and commission on the part of the
appellant.
8.
The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant in
terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules. Part-V of the said Rules lay down the procedure for
imposing penalties. Indisputably, in the departmental proceedings, it is
incumbent to draw up the substance of the imputations of misconduct or
misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge and a statement of
the imputations of the misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of
charge containing the details as are specified therein.
The
Administrative Tribunal in its judgment and order dated 2.1.2002 has held as
under :
"It
is seen from the records that the charges were framed by the enquiry officer
who is the RDO.
RDO is
neither the appointment authority nor the disciplinary authority for the Dy.
Tahsildars.
According
to Rules 20 and 21 it is only the appointing authority/Disciplinary authority
who 5 has to frame charges against the applicant duly furnishing him the
documents prescribed therein namely the basis for the charges. List of
documents and witnesses to be examined etc., this was not done. The Collector
ought to have framed the Charges and called for the applicant's explanation. In
case he was not satisfied then only he ought to have appointed the enquiry
officer.
The very
appointment of the enquiry officer straight way by the Collector rendered the
proceedings void as the procedure laid down under the OCA Rules is a statutory
one."
In view
of the aforementioned findings of the Administrative Tribunal itself, the State
was entitled to initiate a fresh departmental proceeding. It furthermore
appears from the records that the appellant himself had admitted distribution
of a part of the essential commodities meant for public distribution to private
persons. The State by reason of the aforementioned acts of omission and
commission on the part of the appellant is said to have suffered financial loss
to the extent of more than Rs.12,00,000/-.
It has
not been disputed before us that in terms of Rules 9(2) of the Andhra Pradesh
Pension Code the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant could
continue.
9.
Rule 9(2)(a) reads as under :
6
"9. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension:--(1)...
(2)(a)
The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while
the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during
his re-employment shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant,
be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and
concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as
if the Government servant had continued in service :
Provided
that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority
subordinate to the State Government, that authority shall submit a report
recording its findings to the State Government.
10.
Indisputably, therefore, the departmental proceedings which have
been pending against the appellant do not suffer from any legal infirmity and
in law would be deemed to have been continuing.
In State
of U.P. & Ors. v. Harihar Bholenath [(2006) 13 SCC 460], this Court stated
:
"10.
A departmental proceeding can be initiated for recovery of amount suffered by
the State exchequer owing to the acts of omission or commission of a delinquent
employee in three different situations:
(i) when
a disciplinary proceeding is initiated and concluded against a delinquent 7
employee before he reaches his age of superannuation;
(ii) when
a proceeding is initiated before the delinquent officer reached his age of
superannuation but the same has not been concluded and despite the
superannuation of the employee, an order of recovery of the amount from the
pension and gratuity is passed; and (iii) an enquiry is initiated after the
delinquent employee reaches his age of superannuation."
In UCO
Bank & Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor [(2007) 6 SCC 694], this Court stated :
"21.
The aforementioned Regulation, however, could be invoked only when the
disciplinary proceedings had clearly been initiated prior to the respondent's
ceasing to be in service. The terminologies used therein are of seminal
importance. Only when a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against an
officer of the bank despite his attaining the age of superannuation, can the
disciplinary proceeding be allowed on the basis of the legal fiction created
thereunder i.e. continue "as if he was in service". Thus, only when a
valid departmental proceeding is initiated by reason of the legal fiction
raised in terms of the said provision, the delinquent officer would be deemed to
be in service although he has reached his age of superannuation. The
departmental proceeding, it is trite law, is not initiated merely by issuance
of a show-cause notice. It is initiated only when a charge-sheet is
issued."
11.
Mr. Rama Krishna Reddy, however, would urge that having regard to
the fact that the departmental proceedings were initiated in the year 1992-93,
this Court should not direct continuation of the departmental proceedings any
further. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on M.V. Bijlani v. Nion
of India & Anr. [(2006) 5 SCC 88].
12.
We have noticed heretobefore that continuation of the departmental
proceedings is not illegal. The Pension Code raises a legal fiction in terms
whereof the departmental proceedings would be deemed to have continued.
The
Tribunal has passed an order in favour of the appellant on technical grounds.
The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, cannot be said to have committed any
illegality in passing the impugned judgment.
It may be
true that in Bijlani (supra), this Court relying on or on the basis of an
earlier judgment of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh [1990
Supp. SCC 738], held as under :
"16.
So far as the second charge is concerned, it has not been shown as to what were
the duties of the appellant in terms of the prescribed rules or otherwise.
Furthermore, it has not been shown either by the disciplinary authority or the
Appellate Authority as to how and in what manner the maintenance of ACE-8
Register by way of sheets which were found attached to the estimate file were
not appropriate so as to arrive at the culpability or otherwise of the
appellant. The 9 Appellate Authority in its order stated that the appellant was
not required to prepare ACE-8 Register twice. The appellant might have prepared
another set of register presumably keeping in view the fact that he was asked
to account for the same on the basis of the materials placed on records. The
Tribunal as also the High Court failed to take into consideration that the
disciplinary proceedings were initiated after six years and they continued for
a period of seven years and, thus, initiation of the disciplinary proceedings
as also continuance thereof after such a long time evidently prejudiced the
delinquent officer."
In that
case, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated five years after the
appellant therein had handed over charge. It was opined that he was not having
possession of any document. Seven years' time was taken to complete the
enquiry. Appellate Authority also took five years in disposing of the appeal.
None of the authorities had taken into consideration as to whether the
procedure laid down under the Rules has been followed or not.
It is in
the aforementioned fact situation, such a direction was issued.
13.
This case, however, stands on a different footing. There was no
delay in the matter of initiation of the departmental proceedings. It was also
concluded within a reasonable time. The appellant preferred appeals before the
Collector in the year 1994. The said appeal was dismissed by an order dated
21.10.1994. In the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as also 10 the
Collector, the matter has been dealt with in great details. Each and every
aspect of the matter including defences raised by the appellant had been taken
into consideration. It has specifically been noticed that various notices have
been issued to the appellant.
The
appellant, however, filed the original application before the Tribunal in the
year 1997. It was disposed of by the Tribunal by a judgment and order dated
2.1.2002. The State immediately filed a writ petition before the High Court
which was disposed of by an order dated 23.11.2004. It is during the pendency
of the matter before us, the appellant is said to have reached the age of
superannuation. We, therefore, are of the view that delay alone in a case of
this nature should not be held to be fatal in the matter of continuing the
departmental proceeding as the charges against the appellant are serious in
nature and a large sum of money have to be recovered from the appellant. It is,
thus, not expedient in the interest of justice that on the ground of delay
alone, the matter should be given a quietus. We may place on record that a
Division Bench of this Court in U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v.
Kamal Swaroop Tondon [(2008) 2 SCC 41], held as under :
"27.
In UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal, the Court held that two concepts: (i) resignation;
and (ii) 11 retirement were different and employed for different purposes and
in different contexts.
Resignation
brings about complete cessation of master and servant relationship, but
retirement does not do so. In case of retirement, master and servant
relationship continues for grant of retiral benefits.
28. If it
is so, the appellant Corporation, in our opinion, is right in submitting that
the proceedings could have been continued after the retirement of the
respondent employee as far as the financial loss caused to the Corporation
because of negligence on the part of employee and the benefit claimed by the
respondent workman on his terminal benefits are concerned."
14.
We respectfully agree with the aforementioned dicta having regard
to the fact situation obtaining in the instant case.
15.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
...............................J. [S.B. Sinha]
................................J. [Deepak Verma]
New Delhi;
July 27, 2009.
Back
