IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 5184 of 2002(S) ---------------------- OS.1183/1999 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTIRY OF DEFENCE, NW DELHI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI. 3. THE JOINT GENERAL MANAGER, CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI. 4. THE AREA MANAGER, CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI. 5. THE AREA MANAGER, CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI. BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. P.C. JOSEPH, STORE KEEPER GRADE-II, CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT, DEPOT, KOCHI-20. 2. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) SRI.T.A.RAJAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP 5184/2002 ORDER ON CMP NOS.9184 & 48381/2002 DISMISSED. 23.01.2008. SD/- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.1183/99 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATD 3.10.2001 PASSED BY THE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A.NO.1183/1999. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 5184 OF 2002-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 23rd January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are the respondents in O.A. No.1183/1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The 1st respondent herein was the applicant. 2. The applicant was working as Store Keeper Grade II in the Canteen Stores Department under the petitioners. While so, on 9.10.1996 he was served with a memo of charges, alleging that while he was working in the Canteen Stores Department, Bangalore, a net shortage of stores worth Rs.1,15,889.28 was detected. He was in charge of the Stores from September, 1991 to September, 1992. He was called upon to show cause why he should not be punished for the misconduct. He submitted his explanation, denying the allegations against him. According to the applicant, during his tenure, there was no shortage. He was compelled to take charge without physical verification of the stock. Further, there was no OP 5184/2002 2 proper security arrangement to safeguard the stores, which were spilled over in the depot and in the nearby premises. He contended that he is in no way responsible for the shortage. An enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. The enquiry officer submitted Annexure-A11 report, produced along with Ext.P1 O.A. In the said enquiry report, the enquiry officer has held that going by the documents and materials on record, the benefit of doubt should go to the applicant. But, it was also held that the charges against him have been established. The said enquiry report was accepted and a punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect was imposed, by Annexure-A13 order. It was also ordered to recover an amount of Rs.1,15,889.28 from his salary/gratuity. Challenging the said order and also other related orders, the O.A was filed. The writ petitioners resisted the application, contending that the applicant is responsible for the loss caused and therefore, the punishment is fully justified. The Tribunal noticed that the enquiry officer did not hold any proper enquiry. No documents were marked. No witnesses were examined. In the enquiry report, practically the contentions of the applicant were accepted, by holding that he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Thereafter, without giving any reasons, it was stated in the enquiry report that the charges were established. The Tribunal held that the said conclusion is OP 5184/2002 3 perverse and not based on any materials on record. On the basis of the said finding, the impugned orders were set aside. In this Original Petition, the respondents in the O.A challenge the aforementioned order of the C.A.T., a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. According to them, the O.A was not maintainable, as the applicant did not invoke the statutory remedy of appeal available to him. Secondly, it is contended that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in overruling the findings of the enquiry officer. Thirdly, it was pointed out that there were other materials on record before the disciplinary authority and the punishment was imposed, based on them. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the 1st respondent also. Going by the enquiry report, we are of the view that the criticism levelled against it by the C.A.T., is fully justified. We notice that no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked in the enquiry. After holding that the delinquent is entitled to get the benefit of doubt, simply it was held that the charges against him are established. So, we also endorse the view of the C.A.T that the finding was entered against the applicant, based on no evidence. The contention of the writ petitioners that other materials were also relied on for finding the applicant guilty, cannot be accepted. Unless those materials are put to the delinquent, reliance, if any, made on other documents, will vitiate the proceedings. The contention of the writ OP 5184/2002 4 petitioners that the applicant did not invoke the alternative remedy available to him and therefore, the O.A should not have been entertained, cannot be accepted, at this distance of time. It will be quite unjust to turn away the 1st respondent/applicant to invoke the statutory remedy available to him. The contention of the petitioners that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, while rendering Ext.P3 order, cannot be accepted. If the delinquent is found guilty based on no evidence, the Tribunal can definitely interfere with the same. In the result, the Original Petition fails and it is dismissed. Since the 1st respondent has already retired, the balance amount due to him in terms of Ext.P3 order of the C.A.T shall be released to him within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/ OP 5184/2002 5 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------- O.P. NO.5184/2002-S ------------------------------------ JUDGMENT 23.01.2008.