Government Of India & Anr vs George Philip

3. Before dealing with the issue raised, it is necessary to mention the essential facts. The respondent herein, Shri George Philip, was working as Scientific Officer in Plasma Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai (for short 'BARC'). He applied for and was granted Commonwealth Scholarship by the Ministry of Education for advance research training in Plasma Physics. He moved an application in the prescribed proforma seeking permission of the Central Government for being given leave for two years for the said purpose. The application form contained several columns and in the column "duration and purpose of visit" it was mentioned "about two years for advance research training in Plasma Physics" and again in the column meant for aims and objects, the same thing was repeated viz. "advance research training in Plasma Physics". The department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, vide order dated 8.2.1982 granted permission to the respondent to accept the Commonwealth Scholarship for a period of two years and he was granted extraordinary leave for the said period, subject to the conditions laid down in the Ministry of Finance O.M. No.11(1)- E(B)/67 dated June 25, 1970. The order has some bearing and, therefore, it is being reproduced below :-

Thereafter, the respondent proceeded on leave with effect from 24.8.1982 and the leave was to expire on 23.8.1984. The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre of Government of India issued a leave order on 6.9.1982, which specifically mentioned that the grant of leave to the respondent is subject to the conditions laid down in the Ministry of Finance O.M. No.11(1)-E(B)/67 dated June 25, 1970 as amended from time to time and as approved by Department of Atomic Energy vide its ID No. 36/1/81-BARC Vol. II dated February 4, 1982. The period of leave of two years from 24.8.1982 to 23.8.1984 was to be treated as extraordinary leave. It was further mentioned that but for proceeding on leave Shri George Philip would have continued to officiate on the said post and that the period of leave will count for increment. The respondent, however, did not return to India and did not report for duty after expiry of leave on 23.8.1984. He applied for extension of leave which was refused and he continued to overstay the leave. The department sent him as many as 8 notices and telegrams wherein it was clearly mentioned that his request for extension of leave had been refused and he should immediately report back for duty. After more than two years of expiry of leave, he came back to India and reported for duty on 10.12.1986. He was placed under suspension pending enquiry by the order dated 2.1.1987. An enquiry was accordingly held under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification and Control of Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short 'CCS(CCA) Rules') on the ground that by overstaying the leave w.e.f. 24.8.1984 onwards, the respondent is acting in a manner unbecoming of a government servant and had thereby contravened the provisions of Sub-rule (1)(iii) of Rule 3 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Shri George Philip submitted his written statement of defence wherein it was mentioned that he had enrolled himself for a Ph.D. degree in the University of Alberta and as he had not been able to complete his work for award of the degree, he had not returned to India and had not joined duty. In the departmental enquiry copies of all the documents were supplied to the respondent and he was afforded opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the department. After a detailed consideration of the material on record, the enquiry officer gave his findings on 15.11.1989 to the effect that the respondent had overstayed the leave granted to him and the charge was fully established. The Secretary, Government of India, exercising powers under Rule 15(4) of CCS(CCA) Rules, after taking into consideration the representation made by the respondent and after consultation with Union Public Service Commission, imposed a penalty of removal from service with immediate effect upon the respondent by order dated 18.12.1990.

4. The respondent filed O.A. No.56 of 1992 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (for short 'Tribunal') challenging the punishment awarded to him. The Tribunal recorded a finding that there can be no doubt that the respondent did not report for duty as he should have at the end of the period of leave and that he is guilty of abandoning the post of duty. However, it was of the opinion that having regard to the facts of the case the punishment imposed upon the respondent was harsh. Accordingly, the Tribunal by its order dated 6.1.1994 held "that the punishment imposed upon the respondent is quashed while the findings of facts are affirmed"

12. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the respondent cannot be held to be disproportionate, much less shockingly disproportionate, and there was absolutely no ground on which the Tribunal or the High Court could interfere with the order passed by the appellants.

14. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs. The judgment and order dated 17.9.1999 of the Tribunal and the judgment and order dated 10.8.2005 of the High Court are set aside and the order of compulsory retirement passed by the appellants is affirmed.