THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.19923 OF 1999 Dt.8.10.2009 Between: Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production, New Delhi and others .. Petitioner And S.N.Das, Chagemen, Ordinance Factory Project, Yeddumailaram, Medak District. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.19923 OF 1999 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) Respondents in O.A.No.1413 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, challenge the order of the Tribunal dated 30.6.1999. Respondent herein had questioned the charge memo issued to him solely on the ground that the General Manager, who issued the charge memo, was not the competent authority. The Tribunal had accepted the said contention by holding that the Deputy Director General is the competent authority. Questioning the said order, this writ petition has been filed. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 23.11.1999 suspended the order impugned and had also permitted the enquiry to go on, but not take a final decision during pendency of the writ petition. The enquiry is therefore at that stage. Along with the writ petition the petitioners filed an application in W.P.M.P.No.22097 of 2009 seeking leave of the Court to produce authorization in favour of the General Manager. The said authorization dated 10.2.1994 specifically permits the General Manager to draw the very charge memo in the manner prescribed and based on the above. The learned Assistant Solicitor General contends that there is absolutely no infirmity in the charge memo issued and therefore the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. We have seen the authorization produced before us now. Even otherwise in the reply filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal in para 3 it is specifically averred as follows: “In the case of the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority, in exercise of the powers vested on him by sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 issued a specific authorization to the General Manager, O.F. Project, Yeddumailaram, Medak District, to serve the Memorandum of Charges on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. A copy of OFB, Calcutta, letter No.10286/A/VIG/1/94, dt.10.2.1994 and a copy of the Memorandum of Charges No.02/00058/ Estt/14, dt.03.03.1994 issued by the General Manager, Ordnance Factory Project, Medak District in pursuance to the above authorization issued by the Competent Disciplinary Authority are filed as Annexures R-1 and R- 2 respectively. It will be seen that the Memorandum of Charges was issued by the respondent No.4 “BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE DY. DGOF”.” Further, the charge memo itself shows that in terms of authorization it is issued ‘by order and in the name of the Dy.DGOF’. The averments in the counter affidavit and the authorization though produced by the petitioner before the Tribunal, the impugned order does not even referred to that part. Further, under Rule 14 (3) and (4) of CCS (CCA) Rules it is stated that where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant under this rule and Rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up. (emphasis). Similarly under sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 the disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government servant a copy of the articles of charge. (emphasis). The above Rule also specifically shows that it is not by the disciplinary authority itself to frame charges and served it on the Government servant, but the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up and cause to be delivered to the Government servant a copy of the articles of charge. In the present case the authorization dated 10.2.1994 issued by the competent authority specifically says that the General Manager is hereby directed to draw up memorandum of charges in the manner prescribed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 on behalf of the disciplinary authority. Further, under clause (iii) of the authorization, the said memorandum of charges be signed by the General Manager ‘by order and in the name of the Deputy Director General of Factories’. The authorization further permits the General Manager to deliver the charge memo to the charged officer and take up further follow up action on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The conclusions of the Tribunal are therefore factually incorrect inasmuch as the General Manager who had issued the charge memo was fully authorized to act on behalf of the disciplinary authority. Another important circumstance was also lost sight of by the Tribunal inasmuch as after the charge memo dated 3.3.1994 was served on the respondent, the enquiry was conducted in which the respondent has participated and the enquiry was pending for a period of three years before the respondent challenges the charge memo before the Tribunal. The action of the respondent in participating in the enquiry for a period of almost three years after the service of charge memo ought to have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal therefore cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 8.10.2009 kpr