IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 24212 of 2007 Between: 1 The Chief of the Naval Staff Integrated Headquarters of Ministryof Defence (Navy) New Delhi. 2 The Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Dy.General Manager (P & A) Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam. 5 The Chief of Personnel Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (navy) New Delhi. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Shri S.K.Mishra, S/o Satyawadi Mishra, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or anyother appropriate writ calling for records pertaining to order dt.17-09-2007 in O.A.No.739 of 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same or pass such any other appropriate order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit andproper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.A.Rajashekar Reddy (Asst Solicitor Gen) Counsel for the Respondent : Ms. Anita Swain . The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.24212 of 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed by the Central Government represented by Chief of the Naval Staff, Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (Navy), New Delhi, challenging the judgment rendered in O.A.No.739 of 2005 dated 17-09-2007 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The details relevant and necessary for deciding the writ petition are that the respondent herein filed O.A. challenging the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. He was working as draughtsman in the Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam. While so, it was alleged that he refused to take classroom instructions for the apprentices for a period of three weeks between 20-11-2001 and 20- 12-2001 and that he refused to take intercom call from Cdr. Harish Kumar, Officer-in-Charge, Dockyard Apprentice School, Visakhapatnam and also did not report twice to the Officer. It was also alleged that the respondent left the headquarters, but failed to report and remained unauthorisedly absent till the issue of charge memo on 29-05-2002. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and ultimately, the enquiry was completed and final order was passed imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. In appeal, the appellate authority remitted matter to the disciplinary authority to re-consider the penalty imposed. Ultimately, the disciplinary authority passed the final order dated 31-10-2005 imposing the penalty of ‘compulsory retirement’. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed O.A. challenging the competency of the Admiral Superintendent to impose the major penalty. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions held that the Admiral Superintendent is not the competent authority to impose major penalty on the respondent herein and directed reinstatement into service forthwith with all consequential benefits. Hence, this writ petition by Central Government. 3. Heard learned standing counsel for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. Learned standing counsel vehemently contended that the Presidential Order was passed amending Rule 11 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules by which the Admiral Superintendent is constituted by the Chief of Naval Staff as the competent authority to take disciplinary action. He has drawn our attention to the Presidential Order dated 13-9-1979 empowering the Superintendent, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam, to impose all the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 of the said Rules and as such, he is competent to impose all types of penalties. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that he was appointed and further promoted by the Chief of Naval Staff, who alone is the competent authority to impose the major penalty i.e. compulsory retirement. 6. We have heard considered the submissions made by counsel appearing on both sides. In the instant case, the respondent herein was working as Draughtsman in the Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam, at the relevant time. While so, he is alleged to have committed misconduct, as stated above, and thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and ultimately, the Admiral Superintendent had imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated 31- 10-2005. The main contention of the writ petitioners is that the Presidential Order dated 13-9-1979 was amended vide Order dated 15-7-1981 and substituted ‘Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam’ in place of ‘Commodore Superintendent, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam’ and as such, the Admiral Superintendent is empowered to impose all the penalties including major penalties in respect of non-industrial, non-ministerial and industrial staff. 7. It is to be noticed that the respondent produced the appointment order dated 30-11-1984 from which it is clear that the Chief of Naval Staff is the appointing authority. The alleged misconduct is that the respondent failed to take classroom instructions; he has not reported twice to his superiors and remained unauthorisedly absent for short period. Having regard to the gravity of the misconduct and the length of service put in by the respondent and other facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the major penalty of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Therefore, we are inclined to remit the matter to the second petitioner to impose minor penalty as contemplated under Rule 11 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. In view of this, the question as to whether Admiral Superintendent is competent to impose major penalties or not, is left open. The petitioners shall reinstate the respondent into service forthwith and impose the minor penalty, after affording reasonable opportunity to the respondent. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 17-06-2008 Note: Furnish copy in one week. (b/o) bsc ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}