gHIGH ? GQURT OF JUDIC-ATURE AT BILASPUR (G.G } wm'r pE'rmoN no. [£0 ;2oo4 Y.K. Verma, S/o. Late Shri M.L. Verma, Aged about 62 years, Occupatifm — Retd. D.E., Department of Tclacomnilunication, Bilaspurl R/o Salju BagshajMasémganj, > Bilaspur§(C.G.) V ERSU$ ’i‘ I PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 2 7 OF THE CONSTITUTION ‘OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE . DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS‘ \ 1. TARTICULARS OF THEQPETITIONER: As Ifiention‘ed in the Cause Title above. ‘ 2. *pARTICULARs'OF THE «RESPONDENTs: 1 As mentioned in the Cause Title above. i m E § ow 1. Union ofilndia, Through [Secretary Ministry of Telecmm’nunication, x New Delhi. I 2. Chief Geheral Mariager (Telecom), M.P. Telecom I i(w’ ’ a «f a“ Cirtis, Bhapal (MP3 (Now Chhattisgarh Telecom Circle), Raipur (C.G.). 66- /_1 W \Q k6 ‘ § xvi) g3 I< 3 Cenu’al Administrative Q \18“ ’ y u I? ‘ Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Camp, Bilaspur, Through its Registrar. i ) €HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I'TISGARH BILASPUR W P No 1450 of 2004 :Pétitioner Y. K. Verma € ¥ Versus V :Res}pondents Union of India 81. (imhers § I WRIT PETITOIN UNDER ARX‘ICLE 226i227 @P‘ THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I, DB Hon’blc Mr I M Quddusx, V 3r. Hon’bls Mr Prashant Kumar Mlshra, JJ & r i x I hn Amnto Das, Advocate for the peuhoner hn R M Solapurkar, Advocate for the respondents i ' g g o Rn E moral) . (passed on 1111s 31stday ofMamh 2010) V' ‘ , Heaml leaned counsel appearmg for the wnt petih‘oner as well as ! learned counsel appearmg for the respondents V / ‘ Th1s vvnt peuuon has been med agamst the Judgment and order dated 17.3.2004, passed by the Central Admmlstrauve Tnbunal t Jabai§ur Bench, circuit Camp at Bilasp‘ur, in o. A. No. 192/ 2000 3 ( Y. K. Verma Vs; Unionrof India& others). L I Brief facts of the case are, that the petitioner was working as Sub ' D1v1smnal Ohicer (T) Jagdalpur By memo dated 1 10 1996 1 (Annexure A/7) a d1sc1phna1y act10n was proposed agamst the petmoner under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Central Clv11 'Semces (Class1nca’uon, Control 8a Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for shoit ‘the Rules, 1965’) on three charges that he w111fu11y delayed the prov1s1ons of grannng new telephone connechon (NTC) to Shn Vinod Jam and d1d not prowde NTC to M/s Smam T1mber Company. Further, the petitioner misbehaved mth a part tune l V woman worker Smt. Padma Bai. As the petitioner avoided to receiy‘e ‘ the charge sheet and refused to accept the same, the disciplinary a. ‘ ‘ * ‘ “eew‘w : S S years Without cumulative eEect by order dated 155 1997i Subsequently, the appeal preferred by the appellant was d1smlssed by order dated 25 1 1999 Being aggrreved the petitioner nled the, p O.A.No. 19212000 which was drsmissed by the 1mpugned order dated 17th March 2004 It 1s ev1dent that earher the Tnbunal had quashed the punishmexit order on the ground that reasonable opportumty was not prov1ded to the petmoner Thereafter, a hesh enqun'y was conducted and the drscrplinary authorrty With an intention to propose to impose a minor pumshment, exermsed the d1sc1et10n to call for an explanation under Rule 16(1) of the Rules, 1965, In the sard show cause three allegahons were levelled V ; The charge No 3 was that the peunoner mlsbehaved w1th a lady namely Padma Bal, a part t1me worker m the oilice of the S.D;O.(T), Jagdalpur, when she went to sweep the ohice to perform ' her duties and threatened her to remove her from service. It Was éauthonty left w1th no other optlon but tp proceed ex parte against :the petmoner. Accordmgly, by ordert dated 10 5 1990 annual I increment of the petitioner was Withheild for three years Without :cumulative effect The appeal preferre!d by the petitioner Was iidrsmissed by the appellate authority by order dated 19 6 1994 t EThereafter, the appellant fded O A No 540/ 1994, whlch was disposed of by order d ted 1 8 1995 w1th a direction to ahord one more opportunity to the petitioner for submittmg his reply on a, fresh charge sheet Thus, a fresh charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 1 10 1996 to which the petitioner submitted his reply considering the reply of the petitioner the disciplinary authority directed for Withholding of one increment of the petitioner for three . also alleged that the petitioner callled her in his chamber and ‘ misbehaved her'with indecent malliner after closing the door o several occasions during his tenure. Learned counsel submits that since there was serious charge i regarding molestation of a lady, a full fledged enquiry should have, been conducted. But, we do not hnd any charge of molestation V ‘ against the petitioner. The only charge was of misbehavior. That may be only by scolding or threatening her to get her removed from the onice. Closing of door alS6,‘ dQéS m)t indicate any intemio’iv 0f i molestation rather the intention might have been that no outsider : should hear the scolding of a lady by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any charge regarding molestation of a _ lady against the petitioner. 1n Food Corporation Jof India, Hyderabad and others fVs. prahalada Rao and anotherl the Supreme Court held as under} “5. In our View, on the basis of the allegation that Food Corporation of India is misusing its power of imposing minor penalties, the Regulation cannot be interpreted contrary tq its language.- Regulation 60(1)(b) mandates the disciplinary authority to form its opinion whether it is necessary to hold inquiry in a particular case or not. But that would not mean that in all cases where an employee disputes his liability, a‘ full—fledged inquiry should be held. Otherwise, the entire purpose of incorporating summary procedure for imposing. minor penalties would be frustrated.‘ If the discretion given under Regulation 60(1)(b) is misused or is exercised in an arbitrary manner, it is open to the employee‘to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. It is for the disciplinary authority to decide whether regular departmental enquiry as contemplated under Regulation 58 for imposing major penalty should be followed or not. This discretion cannot be curtailed by interpretation which is contrary to the language used. Further, Regulation 60(2) itself provides that in a case if it is proposed to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to aKeCt adversely the amount of retirement benents payable to an employee and in such other cases as mentioned therein, the disciplinary authority Shall hold inquiry in the manner laid down in i t \ 1 (2001) 1 sec i65 n ’ cn 5 ee ore og an lt n pa e r ‘enpe mterpretd the eguluo b oldm onc nously c Ran y hg that e {the emplo dme char, 1t 1s mcumnt upn he yee es the ge be o t ‘authont conct mquuy ctpld for mpsm y to du ' onemate og major pnay t d 1n hdmg tht Whe elt I also erre ol a er an lemploy eme hat lss 1s us th Corpratlon elthr ee ds t o caed to e o e s neg ra of o h uy ould be e settl a a cou’ ow Ie sh se s u n cou a teer wee ho e th y pocgs a aner on h ul aural o la r tuto rul sc e de of y o h he t nlus r n eche y c 1 d on e or such h re r w ave rehe ga l rulr rteta 'y cxr o the cn toy e eed y eg h s ach ase d us or ud rby, ld e ubc t 1 Réulaho 8 bfor makmg any dll Impsm y such penay Hece 1t 1s aprent that th Hlgh Cout by h1 ghence or bech rder suc mqn sh hld It ls ed lw tht rts per of Judlcml Vlew 1n tuc cas l hnted ad rt cn ‘mrfe hr the ,autnty hld e Jnquu reedm m mn lmcsmtent w1th te res of nt Jusuce r 1n Vlouon gof satry es prenbmg th mo mqun and 51mpsmg pumsment or Wre he cocmn o iidmg ‘rad b the d1s1pl1nary authonty s base no v1dence y 1s tat no asonable peson ould h ever tacd As per the Reultlon hodmg of ega ‘depamnl enqun ls a d1set10nay power f ‘dls1phary auhnt wh1ch 1s to b xercls b cons1drm § te fact of e c an 1f 1t 1s m1sed se altranl § eri the an ciumstes f th ase'we t pFion tt e scy autho has sed its dretio oin' ha th diiplinar rity exerci iscn to‘propose the minor penalty under Rule 16 (1) of the Rules, 1965‘ and therefore we do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is misconceived and is therefore dismissed; No order as to costs. Sdl- I.M.Quddusi Judge / I 1t wou b sjet o Jud1c1a rev1ew i a considng facts d rcanc o e c are of he i : " 77/