1 D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION 1453/2001 The Union of India and Ors. Vs. Shri Manak Lal Vyas and Anr. DATE OF ORDER :: 16.5.2007 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. V.K. Mathur, for the petitioners. Mr. J.K. Mishra, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dtd. 31.1.2001 by which Original Application filed by respondent M.L. Vyas was allowed and penalty of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority as affirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority successively has been set-aside. In substance, the respondent who died during the pendency of this writ petition while he was working as Sub-Post Master at Babra was charge-sheeted for a major penalty which was served on him on 29.12.1987. The substance of the charge was that incumbent had received Rs.400/- from one Khurshid Ahmed through Rajendra to be remitted to other place by Money 2 order for which he gave receipt on plain paper from post-office. He did not give any specific receipt for the amount in general nor the amount was remitted. After enquiry was conducted and enquiry report had been served on the respondent the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal holding that charges levelled against him has been proved. On appeal, vide order dated 25.7.1989, the order of punishment was set-aside and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority for de novo proceedings from the stage of receipt of defence. After receipt of the appellate order, the disciplinary authority had conducted de novo enquiry and passed an order of dismissal on 30.10.1990 holding the charges against the incumbent stand proved. The appeal against the order dated 30.10.1990 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 21.3.1991 and revision petition against that was also dismissed on 22.8.1995. This led to filing of Original Application before the Tribunal which has been allowed as aforesaid vide order under challenge. The only ground on which the Original Application was allowed by the learned Tribunal was 3 that since the Appellate Authority has remitted the case to hold de novo proceedings at the stage of receipt of the defence, the said stage was from the date of representation against the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer in the first instance and not from the date of receipt of defence in response to service of memorandum of charges. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal found that there being no direction by the Appellate Authority to hold de novo enquiry, the order was without jurisdiction and on that basis no punishment could have been imposed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (for short 'the CCA Rules' hereinafter) laying down the procedure of holding disciplinary enquiry, the order of the tribunal cannot be sustained as it suffers from error apparent on the face of record. Rule 14 of the CCA Rules lays down the procedure for imposing penalty and sub-rule (4) relevant for our purposes, reads as under :- “a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article or charges is proposed to be sustained and shall require the Government servant to submit, within such time as may be specified, a written statement of his defence and state whether he desires to be heard in person.” 4 Apparently, the rules is very clear at what stage the receipt of defence is expected. Rule 27 of the CCA Rules, envisages that the appellate authority may pass the orders remitting the case to the authority which imposed penalty to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the appellate authority has necessary jurisdiction to remit the case with a direction to hold de novo proceedings from the stage of submission of its defence or from any other stage as the case may be. From perusal of the rules, order of appellate authority directing the disciplinary authority to proceed from the stage on the receipt of defence was clearly referable to sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 which has not been noticed by the learned Tribunal and therefore, the apparent error has been committed in reaching the conclusion by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's order for the reasons given under it cannot be sustained. Moreover, we find from the material placed before us that the incumbent himself has admitted more than once to have received the amount and had not accounted for, and has apportioned the same from his own use. In these circumstances, no interference on 5 merit was called for by the Tribunal even otherwise. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds. The order of the Tribunal, which is under challenge, is quashed and the order of the disciplinary authority is maintained. No costs. (BHANWAROO KHAN),J. (RAJESH BALIA),J. /rm