IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6832 of 2000 Between: A.Jaya S/o. A.Ayyanna E.C.No.2176 , EPP , Nuclear Fuel Complex R/o.Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India Rep by its Secretary to the Govt. of India Dept of Atomic Energy , Mumbai. 2 The Chief Executive Nuclear Fuel Complex ECIL Post , Hyderabad-500 762 3 The Chief Administrative Officer Nuclear Fuel Complex ECIL Post , Hyderabad-500 762. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ calling for the records pertaining to the Penalty order No.NFC/PA.IX/1(01)/2176/1246 Dt: 29-01- 1998 issued by the 3rd respondent as confirmed by the 2nd respondent vide his order No.NFC/PA.IX/1(01)/2176/1378 Dt: 23-06-1998 and quash the same declaring them as illegal , arbitrary and Unconstitutional by setting aside the order dt: 24-11-1999 of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A.No.1629/98 with all consequential benefits such as arrears of pay and allowances , seniority , promotion etc , and pass such other orders or orders as is deemed fit , proper , necessary and expedient in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VEMURIVENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.RATNA REDDY (ADDL.S.C FOR C.G) The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. The petitioner while working as Tradesman-B in the Nuclear Fuel Complex, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and the following two charges have been framed against him: “1. Shri A.Jaya, while functioning as Tradesman ‘B’ in EPP, NFC, is alleged to have abused and threatened to kill Shri K.Sivashankar, SO/SC and also threatened and abused Shri S.K.Jha, SO/C on 26.3.90 and thus behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant. Shri Jaya is, therefore, charged for an act of misconduct violative of Rule 3(i)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 2. Shri Jaya is alleged to have levelled false allegations against Shri K.Sivashankar, SO/SC with false witnesses in support of his allegation contained in his letter dt.27.3.90. Thus Shri Jaya is alleged to have behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant. Shri Jaya is, therefore, charged for an act of misconduct violative of Rule 3(i)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” After submission of written statement, an enquiry officer was appointed in December, 1990 and based on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of penalty of reduction of pay by two stages from Rs.1250 to Rs.1200 (pre- revised) in the time scale of pay of Rs.1150-1500 for a period of two years vide proceedings dated 22.7.1992. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 11.9.1992 and the appellate authority by order, dated 28.12.1992 confirmed the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. Against the said order, the petitioner filed O.A.No.698 of 1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated 3.1.1997 set aside the aforesaid order directing the respondents to initiate fresh enquiry against the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal, an enquiry officer and presenting officer were appointed on 6.3.1997 and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 21.11.1997 holding that the aforesaid charges have been proved. The petitioner was given a show cause notice to submit explanation within 15 days and accordingly he submitted his representation dated 12.12.1997. After considering the representation the disciplinary authority observed that the petitioner, who was in second shift duty on 26.3.1990 had abused and threatened Shri K.Sivashankar, SO/SC. The petitioner also levelled false allegations against Shri K.Sivashankar with false witnesses in support of his allegations contained in his letter, dated 27.3.1990, and the defence of the petitioner was disbelieved. The petitioner abused the said Shri Sivashankar and also tried to level allegations on Shri Sivashankar with false witnesses and the charges were proved against him. After giving reasonable opportunity to rebut the allegations, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of reduction of pay by two stages from Rs.4600/- to Rs.4400/- in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-100-6000 with immediate effect for a period of one year without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension by order dated 29.1.1998. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority by order, dated 23.6.1998 dismissed the appeal confirming the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1629 of 1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The Central Administrative Tribunal after going through the entire records held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and the contention of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority was predetermined to impose punishment was rejected on the ground that the said contention is without any basis. The contention that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority did not apply their mind was also rejected as the order is a speaking order and sufficient reasons have been given by dealing with the contentions of the petitioner. With regard to the contention of disproportionate punishment is concerned, the Tribunal held that the punishment is not disproportionate in view of the misbehaviour of the petitioner with higher officer whom in fact he threatened with dire consequences. On a perusal of the entire material, we are of the opinion that the orders impugned do not suffer from any infirmity legal or otherwise. We do not see any ground to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the order of the appellate authority and also the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. __________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 14.7.2009 kpr