1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.124 OF 2004 Shri V. S. Ashvekar, resident of House No.6/17A, Sonarbhat, Aradi, Saligao, Bardez, Goa. ......... Petitioner. V/s. 1) Union of India, through its Secretary (Defence), having Office at North Block, New Delhi. 2) The Flat Officer, Commanding Goa Area, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa 403 801. 3) The Flat Officer, Commanding-in-Chief, Western Naval Command, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai – 4 ........ Respondents. Mr. M. S. Sonak, and Mr. J. Supekar, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Asst. Solicitor General for the respondents. CORAM :- D.G. KARNIK & F.M. REIS, JJ. Date :- 25th August, 2010. 2 ORAL J U D G M E N T : (Per D.G. KARNIK, J.) 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 2nd January, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, in its Camp at Goa. 2. The petitioner was employed as a Civilian Motor Driver- GD-II in the Naval establishment with effect from 16.11.1979. On 6th July, 2001, a charge-sheet was served on him framing five Articles of Charges and imputation of misconduct. The substratum of the charges was that the petitioner had disobeyed several orders, oral as well as written, issued to him from time to time. Firstly, he had refused to collect monthly salary from August, 2000 to April, 2001 despite written orders of his superiors. It was also charged that he refused to collect the transfer/movement order issued to him by the Headquarters, Goa Naval Area on 18th December, 2000 and another Movement Order dated 23rd February, 2001. Thirdly, it is alleged that he disobeyed the verbal and written orders of his superiors dated 2nd April 2001 and 28th April, 2001 by refusing to drive the service vehicle for official commitments, thereby violating Rule 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of Central 3 Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1964. Further charges against the petitioner were that he refused to accept the written suspension order issued by the Headquarters, Goa Naval Area dated 10th May, 2001 and by INS Mandovi dated 18th May, 2001, and he failed to report to INS Mandovi from 21st May, 2001. By his reply dated 25th July, 2001, the petitioner answered the charge-sheet by admitting his guilt and all the charges levelled against him. He, however, stated that he was mentally disturbed. He submitted that on account of sickness, and misunderstanding between him and the superiors, he was mentally disturbed and, therefore, he could not control himself. Finally in his reply, he apologized for the mistakes committed by him and prayed that only a minor penalty of censure, or withholding of his promotion, or by recovering from him any pecuniary loss for his negligence or breach of orders; or withholding of increments of pay be imposed on him. An Inquiry Officer was appointed and the inquiry was conducted. The petitioner was given an opportunity to put up his case. He was put certain questions, which he answered. In his answers, he reiterated that he was pleading guilty to the charges levelled against him. He also stated that he did not wish to examine any witness in support of his defence. Thereupon, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report recording 4 the finding of guilt against the petitioner. Thereupon, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of compulsory retirement. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate Authority against the order of compulsory retirement was dismissed. The petitioner then moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) which dismissed his appeal and confirmed the order of compulsory retirement. That order is impugned in this petition. 3. Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before us that the petitioner was given an assurance that if he pleaded guilty, only a minor punishment will be imposed upon him. It was on this assurance that the petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges and despite this, the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on him contrary to the assurance. This was not legal. In support, he referred to and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kasambhai Abdulrehmanbhai Sheikh and ors. vs. State of Gujarat and another, ((1980) 3 SCC 120). Secondly, Mr. Sonak submitted that the first appellate Authority has not considered all the points raised in the appeal and has merely referred to what was stated in the Inquiry Report. He, therefore, submitted that the order 5 was bad in law. In support of his contention, he referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in R.P. Bhatt vs. Union of India and ors., ((1986) 2 SCC 651). 4. In our view, there is no merit in the submissions of Mr. Sonak for the reasons indicated below. As regards the contention that the petitioner had pleaded guilty because of the assurance given to him that if he pleaded guilty, he would be let off with minor punishment, the petitioner has not given either in the appeal memo before the appellate Authority or in the appeal memo before the Tribunal or even in the writ petition any details of the alleged assurance given to him. He has not stated who gave him the assurance and whether the person giving the assurance had any authority, in law or in fact, to give such an assurance. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had raised a ground of “plea bargaining”. However, all along he used passive voice like “the petitioner was assured that if he pleaded guilty, lesser punishment would be imposed”. Neither before the Tribunal, nor before this Court the petitioner has named any person giving him such an assurance. 5. We must also refer to the answers given by the petitioner 6 to question nos. 12 to 14 put to him by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was specifically asked whether he was under pressure from any party/individual for pleading guilty, to which the petitioner replied in the negative. He was then asked whether he wanted to have more time or he wanted to consult any other person and the petitioner replied in the negative. In the light of these answers, as also in the absence of any material to show that any person had given him any assurance about any lesser punishment if he pleaded guilty, the contention of the petitioner about the plea bargaining cannot be accepted. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kasambhai Abdulrehmanbhai Sheikh and ors. vs. State of Gujarat and another (supra), on the question of plea bargaining has no application to the facts of the present case. 6. In the case of R.P. Bhatt vs. Union of India and ors.,(supra) relied upon by the petitioner, the Supreme Court has followed the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Som Datt Datia vs. Union of India, (AIR 1969 SC 414) wherein it was observed thus : “Apart from any requirement imposed by the statute 7 or statutory rule, either expressly or by necessary implication, there is no legal obligation that the statutory tribunal should give reasons for its decision. There is also no general principle or any rule of natural justice that a statutory tribunal should always and in every case give reasons in support of its decision.” The Supreme Court has thus specifically held that there is no legal obligation that the statutory Tribunal should give reasons for its decision. This decision does not support the petitioner at all. In the present case, the petitioner had pleaded guilty. Considering the fact that the petitioner had pleaded guilty not only in his written reply to the show cause notice, but also by answering the questions put by the Inquiry Officer and reaffirming that he was pleading guilty, we do not think that any elaborate reasons were required to be given by the appellate authority for holding that the petitioner was guilty. We have perused the order of the appellate authority. In our view, the appellate authority has given adequate reasons for holding that the petitioner was guilty and confirming the order of punishment. 7. No other point was urged. There is no merit in the 8 petition. The same is dismissed. Rule is discharged, with no order as to costs. D.G. KARNIK, J. F.M. REIS, J. ssm.