IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 2557 of 1999 Between: Ch. Narayanacharyulu, Ramathirtham-535 218 Nellimarla Mandalam, Vizianagram Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Secretary, Ministry of Defence, DHQ P.O. New Delhi-110 011 2 Chief of the Naval Staff, Naval Head Quarters, DHQ PO, New Delhi-110 011 3 Director of Civilian Personnel, Naval Head Quarters, Naval Department, DHQ PO, New Delhi-110 011 4 Flag Officer Commanding In Chief, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam-530 014 5 Chief Staff Officer (P & A) Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam-530 014 .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to set aside the erroneous judgment order Dt:21-1-98 of OA.1541/95 and erroneous Judgment order Dt:8-5-98 of RA 12/98 of OA 1541/95 which have become reason for irreparable loss of my entire service of 37 yr up to 30-6-95, and also become reason for the basis for dismissing the MA SR 657/98 of OA 277/95 on 15-4-98 by which I claimed implementation of Judgment order of OA 277/95 and also for dismissed in my absence without giving me any opportunity even after holding my written request for providing hearing and thus become objectionable to get implementation of judgment order of OA 277/95 Dt5-9-95 by which the appellate order NO.CP(L)/6022 Dt:6-1-95 has been set aside thereby punishment order No.CE/9103/7 Dt:21-3-90 stands quashed, a as per statutory law, and also he erroneous judgment orders become reason and basis for dismissal of the OA.844/97 on 30-9-98 by which I claimed the pensionary benefits as per rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, as per statutory law notified in CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, and also become reason for the irreparable loss of legitimate pensionary benefits throughout my life. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.C.ACHARYULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.BHASKAR The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) The writ petitioner was working as UDC, Head Quarters, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam, and charges were framed against him concerning omission to publish ‘leave not due’ particulars granted to him by his Section Officer, tampering with Leave Order 8/83, dated 12-01-1984, demand of a bribe from K. Nookaraju, ASK for removal and replacement of documents in his Service Record, passing on official information about the fraudulent entries of Sri K. Nookaraju, ASK to Visakha Trade Union Council, Visakhapatnam, refusal to accept the official letter regarding his explanation for so passing on official information, use of improper and derogatory language against the superiors in his representation, dated 05-02-1985 and refusal to accept official letters. The charges relate to the happenings while the writ petitioner was working at Weapon Equipment Depot, Visakhapatnam. A departmental inquiry was ordered and Sri Seshadri, CGO, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam appointed as inquiry officer, conducted the inquiry, in which the writ petitioner participated. The inquiry officer in his report found the writ petitioner to be guilty of 6 charges out of 7 charges, except charge No. IV. The Vice Admiral, Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief agreed with the findings of the inquiring authority except regarding Charge No. VII and found Charge No. VII also to be not proved against the writ petitioner. The Vice Admiral also found that CSO (P&A) was competent to issue charge memo and appoint inquiry officer and presenting officer. He also found the writ petitioner to have refused to reply the Board’s interrogation during the preliminary inquiry and thus, did not avail the opportunity given to him. He further found that the complaint and preliminary inquiry report being not quoted as documentary evidence in the charge sheet, need not be furnished to the writ petitioner. He noted that similar contentions were rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.584 of 1987, and concluded that the writ petitioner is not a fit person to be retained in Government service and imposed a penalty of ‘dismissal from service’, as Appointing Authority, which will take effect from the date of receipt of the order by the writ petitioner. Still, on compassionate grounds due to the length of service of the writ petitioner and his needs, he took a sympathetic view to sanction a compassionate allowance equal to 2/3rds of his pension and gratuity, which would have been admissible to him, had he retired on compensation pension, in terms of Rule 41(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. This order, dated 27-02-1989 was challenged by the writ petitioner in O.A. No.171 of 1989 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and the Tribunal by its judgment dated 29-11-1989 found that in O.A. No.584 of 1987, the competence of the authority who initiated disciplinary action, was upheld. The Tribunal also upheld the competence of the Initiating Authority for the detailed reasons stated by it and further found that exercise of disciplinary power by a higher authority higher in rank than the designated disciplinary authority will also be a valid exercise of power. The Tribunal also held that Article 310 of the Constitution of India is a bar to the writ petitioner claiming any reliefs or rights under Articles 309 and 311, as Article 311 is not applicable to members of defence forces or holders of offices connected with defence. The Tribunal also opined that the applicability of principles of natural justice and the right to opportunity are expressly excluded to defence employees and civilian employees in defence services, when their services are terminated under the pleasure doctrine under Article 310. However, where the power under Article 310 was not delegated by the President, the procedure prescribed has to be complied with. However, the Tribunal found that non-furnishing of a copy of the inquiry officer’s report before the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment, would render the order of punishment illegal. While setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority, dated 27-02- 1989, the Tribunal gave liberty to the writ petitioner to raise all his objections to the inquiry officer’s report, before the disciplinary authority and left it to the disciplinary authority to finally determine how the period of absence of the writ petitioner from duty in between should be treated. The Vice Admiral again passed orders on 21-03-1990 agreeing with the inquiry report in respect of the findings on charges I to III, V and VI and holding charges IV and VII to have not been proved. The disciplinary authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service, but granted compassionate allowance equal to 2/3rds of his pension and gratuity in view of 31 years of service put in by the writ petitioner with a balance of five years of service for retirement on superannuation. The writ petitioner filed O.A. No.303 of 1990 against the said order and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench by its judgment, dated 08-03-1991 opined that if the writ petitioner so wants, he can prefer an appeal against the impugned order and directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within three months of receipt of the appeal, if preferred by the writ petitioner within 45 days and also to give a personal hearing to the writ petitioner. When the writ petitioner filed Review Application No.26 of 1991 against the said order, the Tribunal refused to make any review reiterating the correctness of their decision. The writ petitioner preferred S.L.P. No.3258-59/92 before the Supreme Court of India against the same, which was rejected on 25-09- 1992. Then he preferred an appeal, which was rejected as time barred having been presented after 17 months after the receipt of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Against the said order, dated 21-04-1993, the writ petitioner preferred O.A. No.1276 of 1993 and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench by its judgment, dated 27-05-1994 set aside the said order and remitted the matter to the Chief of Naval Staff for disposal in accordance with law including giving a personal hearing to the writ petitioner. In pursuance of the said order, the Chief of Naval Staff gave a personal hearing to the writ petitioner on 12-10-1994 and rejected the appeal by order dated 06-01-1995 for the reasons stated in the order. This again was the subject matter of O.A. No.277 of 1995 preferred by the writ petitioner and in its judgment, dated 05-09-1995, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench again set aside the order, dated 06-01-1995 and remitted the matter back, as the order was not prepared by the Chief of Naval Staff, but was merely signed by him. The Tribunal did not consider other contentions of the writ petitioner, which were directed to be dealt with in accordance with law by the Chief of Naval Staff while considering the appeal. Again an order was passed on 23-11-1995 by the Chief of Naval Staff, again rejecting the appeal after careful reconsideration of the same. The writ petitioner filed O.A. No.1541 of 1995 challenging the said order and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench by its order, dated 21-01-1998 referred to the long history of the case and opined that the writ petitioner himself has to be blamed for the long delay due to his preferring an appeal to a wrong authority. The Tribunal also observed that the preliminary inquiry report has no significance once a regular inquiry is held, as held by the Apex Court. The Tribunal also rejected the contention of any bias on the part of the inquiry officer and found the inquiry officer to have not exceeded his authority while referring to some registers, which are additional documents. The Tribunal also rejected the contention that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice and the Tribunal also rejected the contention that the disciplinary proceedings came to an end when the order of punishment was set aside by the Tribunal in O.A. No.171 of 1989. The Tribunal noted that the appellate authority took into consideration all the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, applied its mind to the facts of the case and reached a just conclusion. Consequently, it dismissed the petition. The writ petitioner filed R.A. No.12 of 1998 for review of the said order and the review petition was dismissed on 08-05-1998 reiterating that the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No.277 of 1995 did not amount to quashing the charge memo itself. The writ petitioner also filed M.A.S.R. No.657 of 1998, which was rejected stating that the directions in O.A. No.277 of 1995 were complied with and no directions can be given concerning the same. The writ petitioner filed a petition for reviewing the said order in R.A. No.20 of 1998 and by an order dated 06-10-1998, the Tribunal found no ground or justification for making a review. The petitioner then filed O.A. No.844 of 1997, which was disposed of on 30-09-1998 dismissing the petition holding that the writ petitioner was a dismissed employee and not retired employee and there is no ground to direct the authorities to sanction cent percent pension. The writ petitioner filed this petition seeking to set aside the orders in O.A. No.1541 of 1995, R.A. No.12 of 1998 in O.A. No.1541 of 1995, M.A.S.R. No.657 of 1998 in O.A. No.277 of 1995 and R.A. No.20 of 1998 therein and further seeking to implement the judgment in O.A. No.277 of 1995, dated 05-09-1995 seeking to construe the same as quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings. He also desired to have the order in O.A. No.844 of 1997 set aside to enable him to get full pensionary benefits. He reiterated his contentions in the elaborate affidavit in support of the writ petition. The writ petitioner advanced arguments in person, while the respondents were defended by Sri A. Rajasekara Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General. The writ petitioner seeks plurality of reliefs against the orders passed in the three original applications by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench including the orders passed in the review and miscellaneous applications therein from time to time and whether such a writ petition as framed is technically maintainable, more so at such distance of time, is open to question. Without replicating the various reasons given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in its orders in different original applications referred to above, it is suffice to state that the reasons cannot be considered unjust or unreasonable or not based on the factual matrix under consideration of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The writ petitioner arguing in person referred to the settled principles in this regard, as reiterated in the binding precedents from the Apex Court including the various decisions referred to in the writ affidavit and when any errors or mistakes in the disciplinary proceedings were not allowed to be perpetrated due to intervention of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench from time to time and when ultimately, the final orders were in accordance with the prescribed procedure and fundamental principles of natural justice, the Tribunal could not have interfered with the same in exercise of any power of judicial review, the scope of which itself is limited. When this Court has to consider the matter in exercise of its jurisdiction for issuance of a writ of certiorari, such jurisdiction is further circumscribed making an interference possible only when there was an error in exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal or the disciplinary authority or inquiring officer and in the absence of any such grave errors as warranting exercise of extraordinary original jurisdiction of this Court, no interference can be made. The writ petitioner, therefore, cannot succeed. The writ petitioner requested during hearing of the arguments that the order passed herein may be communicated to him, as it will be difficult for him to again come to the Court to receive the order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed without costs and a copy of this order shall be communicated by registered post with acknowledgement due, to the writ petitioner to his residential address given. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-10-2008 Note: Present residential address of the petitioner: Ch. Narayana Acharyulu, Free Legal Advisor, Sri Laxmi Nilayam, Side of M.R.O. Office, V. MADUGULA – 531 027. Svv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ }