IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 2143 of 2011(Z) ---------------------------- OA.872/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER ------------------ SANTHOSH KUMAR S.V., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.P.SUKUMARAN, ACCOUNTANT, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA, M.G.ROAD, P.B.NO.5607,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (RESIDING AT SANGEETHA, KGRA-A68, KODUNGANUR P.O, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.KALA T.GOPI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, POCKET-9 DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY MARG, NEW DELHI- 110 124. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA, M.G.ROAD, P.B.NO.5607, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. THE SENIOR DEPUTY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (ADMN), OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA, M.G.ROAD, P.B.NO.5607, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASHOKAN,SC,IA & AD-INDIAN AUDIT THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2011, ALONG WITH OPCAT NO. 1820 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(C.A.T) NO.2143/2011 APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.15.3.2011 IN O.A.NO.872/2009 OF THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P2: COPY OF O.A.NO.872/2009 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A.NO.872/2009 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ O.P.(CAT) Nos.1820 & 2143 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. The connected O.P.(C.A.T.) are filed challenging the very same order of the Tribunal setting aside the punishment imposed on the delinquent, who was a Senior Accountant in the Accountant General's office. 2. After hearing both sides and after going though the orders, we feel that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in holding that punishment is far disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. However, the Tribunal has upheld the finding of guilt of the delinquent and only directed reconsideration of punishment. Eventhough the counsel for the delinquent requested us to decide the punishment by this Court, we do not think it proper on our side to decide what is the punishment that is commensurate with the nature of the guilt. We notice O.P.(CAT) Nos.1820 & 2143/2011 2 that even the Tribunal has not ventured to fix the punishment on the delinquent. We, therefore, uphold the order of the C.A.T and direct the disciplinary authority to decide the punishment without any further delay. 3. So far as the O.P.(C.A.T) filed by the delinquent is concerned, challenge is on the competence of the subordinate officer to conduct disciplinary proceedings and for taking action against the petitioner in a case where the complainant is the Head of the Department, namely, the Accountant General. Admittedly, the disciplinary authority who is to take action against the petitioner is the Senior Deputy Accountant General who has issued orders in this case. We do not find any bias on the disciplinary authority merely because he is subordinate of the Accountant General who raised a complaint against the petitioner. However, we make it clear that the disciplinary authority should show absolute independence in the matter of awarding punishment and he should not be influenced by the fact that aggrieved person in this case is the Head of the Department. Accordingly, O.P.(C.A.T)s are disposed of with O.P.(CAT) Nos.1820 & 2143/2011 3 direction to the disciplinary authority to take final decision on the punishment, at the earliest. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps