IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14882 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.259/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN,A1, SIVASAKTHI APARTMENTS,SANSKRIT COLLEGE ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA-682 301,FORMERLY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF CAHSEWNUT & COCOA DEVELOPMENT,KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR SMT.G.AMBILI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & CO-OPERATION, KRISHI BHAVAN,NEW DELHI - 110001. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, & CO-OPERATION, KRISHI BHAVAN,NEW DELHI-110001. 3. THE DIRECTOR,HORTICULTURE, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & CO-OPERATION,KRISHI BHAVAN,NEW DELHI-110001. 4. THE HORTICULTURE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & CO-OPERATION, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE & CO-OPERATION, KRISHI BHAVAN,NEW DELHI. 5. THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER & JOINT SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,(DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & CO-OPERATION)KRISHI BAHVAN,NEW DELHI-110001. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 14882 OF 2008-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 2nd June, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner was the Director, Directorate of Cashewnut and Cocoa Development, Kochi. He sought voluntary retirement from service with effect from 1.5.2006. The petitioner submits, he has been served with Ext.P4 memo of charges dated 13.3.2006 on 17.3.2006. He filed a detailed reply statement to the charges on 6.10.2006, a copy of which is produced in the writ petition as Ext.P5. The explanation of the petitioner having been found not satisfactory, an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges against him, by Ext.P6 order dated 3.11.2006. While so, the petitioner filed O.A.No.259/2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, challenging Ext.P4 and also seeking consequential reliefs. The respondents filed a reply statement, resisting the prayers in the O.A. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, dismissed the said O.A., by Ext.P10 order dated 13.3.2008. WPC 14882/2008 2 2. Going by Ext.P10, the main contentions raised before the Tribunal were: (1) The memo of charges issued to him is vitiated by mala fides. (2) The memo of charges was drawn up without proper application of mind and also without noticing the fact that the petitioner is due to retire from service on 1.5.2006. The Tribunal found that the contention of the applicant that the memo of charges issued is vitiated by mala fides, is untenable. The other contentions were also overruled and the O.A was dismissed. This Writ Petition is filed, challenging Ext.P10. 3. According to the petitioner, in view of the provisions contained in Rule 9(2) of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, the disciplinary proceedings could not have been initiated or continued as the jurisdictional pre-conditions under the said sub-rule were not satisfied. He submits, Ext.P4 is only a show cause notice. The decision to proceed with the enquiry was actually taken after the date of his retirement. The enquiry proceedings should be treated as having been initiated only on the date on which it was decided to appoint an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges and to proceed with the enquiry. The same was, admittedly, after the date of retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. In support of that submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in UCO Bank & Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor [2007 WPC 14882/2008 3 (4) Supreme 474]. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the contents of Ext.P4 are factually incorrect and therefore, the disciplinary proceedings based on it are liable to be interfered with. 4. We have perused Ext.P4. It is a memo of charges served on the delinquent writ petitioner. It calls for the explanation of the petitioner. The said memo of charges also says, it is proposed to hold an enquiry. But that statement will not have the effect, which is sought to be canvassed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, only when a decision is taken, considering the reply submitted to Ext.P4, to proceed with the enquiry, the disciplinary proceedings could be treated as having commenced. The said contention is plainly untenable and unsupported by the provisions of the Rules. The disciplinary proceedings started rolling against the petitioner with the service of memo of charges on him. If the explanation is found satisfactory, the proceedings will be closed. Otherwise, it will be rejected and an enquiry will be held. None of the provisions of the Rules or any decision of the Apex Court or this Court support the submission of the petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings could be treated as having started only when it is decided to proceed with the enquiry, when the reply to the charges is found unsatisfactory. The decision relied on by the petitioner also does not support his case. The said decision clearly says that WPC 14882/2008 4 once the charge- sheet is served, the disciplinary proceedings will be treated as having been initiated. In this case, Ext.P4 is the charge-sheet and it was admittedly served on the petitioner on 17.3.2006. 5. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into the correctness of the allegations contained in Ext.P4 charge-sheet. They are all matters for the inquiring authority to decide. The petitioner can place them before the said authority. We find that the challenge made against the proceedings before the C.A.T has been rightly repelled by the Tribunal by Ext.P10 order. We agree with the reasons and conclusions of the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry against the petitioner may be ordered to be held at Kochi. On the above claim of the petitioner the Tribunal has already issued directions. The competent authority has been directed to consider the said request of the petitioner. We find that there is nothing wrong with the said decision. If, pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal, the petitioner's claim is rejected, he can move the Tribunal again. Subject to the above observation, the Writ WPC 14882/2008 5 Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/