1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.167/96 General Manager (Telecom District) & Ors. vs. Divesh Kumar & Anr. Date of order : 16/7/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Inderjeet Singh for the petitioner. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur dated 27.6.1994 by which the reference on the question whether the action of the management of General Manager, Telecom (A.O. (T.A. & Cash) and AO (TR), Jaipur in stopping one grade increment of the respondent-workman for a period of three years without cumulative effect is justified and if not what relief he is entitled to? The Central Government Industrial Tribunal answered the reference in the terms that the Accounts Officer (Telephone Revenue) was not competent to award the aforesaid penalty and therefore the order of 2 penalty was set aside and the respondent was held entitled to only consequential benefits. Despite notice, none has appeared for the respondent-workman. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner were heard and the record has been perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the Accounts Officer (Telephone Revenue) was not competent to award the penalty. It is argued that the Accounts Officer (Telephone Revenue) falls in the definition of Head of the Department and in this respect the Circulars of the department dated 22.10.1990 and 6.1.1987 were produced. The judgement of this Court in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.213/78, on which the Tribunal has relied to hold the Accounts Officer (Telephone Revenue) had no competence was rendered at a time when the aforesaid Circulars were issued. The said judgement of this Court has not considered effect of such Circulars and therefore the learned Tribunal was not justified in following such judgement. The judgement was 3 distinguishable for the aforesaid reason. Learned counsel submitted that the penalty was awarded for reason of misconduct for which the due notice was given to the respondent and enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was held. The respondent-workman was given all the opportunities to defend himself. The penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority was upheld even by the appellate authority. It cannot be said that the penalty was awarded without the evidence against the delinquent. The Tribunal ought to have interfered in the matter. The impugned order be therefore set aside. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the award, I find that the Tribunal has relied on the judgement of this Court in aforementioned second appeal. In that appeal, the notification issued by the Ministry of Communication dated 17.1.1972 came up for consideration of this Court. By that notification, the Accounts Officer (Telephone Revenue) was notified within the 4 definition of Head of the Department. This Court on consideration of the provisions of the Rules of C.C.A. 1965 and S.R.O., 1957 held that after 17.1.1972 disciplinary authority for all the workmen would be Accounts Officer (Telephone Revenue) and S.D.O. (Phones) was held to be not a competent authority to award penalty. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Circulars dated 22.10.1990 and 6.1.1987 but he is not in a position to produce their copies or otherwise show that the aforesaid Circular had the effect of superseding the notification dated 17.1.1972. Not only the copies of the Circulars were produced, but it has also not been shown whether those Circulars are not in conflict with the Schedule appended with the C.C.A. Rules of 1965. It is true that S.R.O, 1957 was superseded by Rules of 1965 but in the later rules, it was provided that the provisions of S.R.O., 1957 to the extent they are not in conflict with any of the provisions contained in the Rules of 1965 would still hold field. 5 The Tribunal has on consideration of all these aspects of the matter held that the Accounts Officer (Telephone Revenue) was not the disciplinary authority of the respondent workman and therefore he was not competent to award the penalty. I do not find any such infirmity or perversity in the award which may warrant interference by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/