IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 355 of 2010(S) --------------------------- OA.163/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ V.S.BINU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.SADASIVAN.V., CLERK TYPIST, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT),KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,RESIDING AT: "POORNIMA", NEAR POLICE STATION, KOVALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRIT.R.MOHANAKUMAR SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 10, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 124. 2. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) KERALA, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (ADMN), OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MRS.ASWATHY V.S., DEPUTY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (ADMN), OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(AUDIT) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.V.ASHOKAN,SC,IA & AD-INDIAN AUDI THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.P. (CAT) No. 355 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Petitioner filed O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the Deputy Accountant General. Petitioner is a Group C employee in the Accountant General's office. Disciplinary proceedings were first initiated against the petitioner by the Senior Deputy Accountant General who appointed an Enquiry Officer. Even though enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner, the Deputy Accountant General considered the matter and found that enquiry report was unacceptable and therefore disciplinary proceedings were continued against the petitioner. Petitioner filed O.A. before the Tribunal on the ground that Deputy Accountant General has no authority to proceed against him for taking disciplinary action. The Tribunal however found that Deputy Accountant General is the appointing authority and under delegation through proceedings issued by the Controller and Auditor General of India, he has the powers to take disciplinary action against the OP (CAT) NO. 355 of 2010 2 petitioner. Consequently O.A. was dismissed against which this O.P. (CAT) is filed. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. V. V. Asokan appearing for the respondents. 2. After going through the order of the Tribunal and after hearing both sides, we do not find any merit in the O.P. because Senior Deputy Accountant General as well as Deputy Accountant General enjoy the powers to take disciplinary action against Group C employees by virtue of delegation of powers made by Controller and Auditor General of India. Petitioner accepts the fact that Deputy Accountant General who is continuing the disciplinary proceedings against him is the appointing authority and therefore in our view, the disciplinary proceedings continued against him by the Deputy Accountant General is perfectly within the powers delegated to him by the Controller and Auditor General of India. Besides this, appointing authority has inherent power to take disciplinary action against employees. Therefore we do not find any merit in the O.P.(CAT) and the same is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) kk Judge. OP (CAT) NO. 355 of 2010 3