Chief Administrative v. G. Maruthi

ORDER

This petition is filed by the respondents against Application No. 349/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called ‘CAT’), Bangalore vide order dated 7-10-2003 wherein the application filed by the respondent herein has been allowed setting aside the penalty on the ground that there was no suppression of material fact by the applicant regarding his qualification and that misconduct of the applicant had not been proved and the order of penalty confirmed in appeal and revision was liable to be set aside.

2. The respondent herein filed application No. 349/2003 averring that application was invited by Indian Rare Earths Limited for appointment to the post of Tradesman “B” (Plant Operation) in the pay scale of Rs. 1150-25-1500 besides the post of Scientific Assistant ‘C’ (Electronics) in the scale of Rs. 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2000 and since the applicant had qualification for the appointment of the post of tradesman ‘B’ (Plant Operation), he submitted his application and was selected for appointment to the said post. Thereafter while he was in service of the respondent charge memo was issued on not being satisfied with the applicant's conduct and an enquiry was held against him by the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority in the disciplinary proceedings held that the charge has been proved and imposed penalty and the same was accepted by the appellate authority and thereafter the applicant preferred a revision petition and the revisional authority came to the conclusion that no adequate grounds existed for interfering with the order of the disciplinary, authority as there was no miscarriage of justice and accordingly, confirmed the penalty of reduction of pay by seven stages with cumulative effect which was imposed by order dated 27-11-2000 which was confirmed in appeal by order 4-12-2000.

3. Being aggrieved by the said action on the part of the authorities. Original Application No. 349/2003 was filed and the application was resisted by the petitioners herein, contending that the applicant had suppressed material fact of having possessed additional qualification of having acquired Diploma in Civil Engineering on the date of the application and the suppression of the said material fact would amount to misconduct which would entail removal from service as mentioned in the application itself on verification of the application. It was also contended that on similar facts, the application filed in OA No. 434/2002 had been dismissed and wherefore, the application was liable to be dismissed. However, the tribunal by its order dated 7-11-2003 held that the decision of the tribunal in Original Application No. 434/2002 dated 30-4-2003 was contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court and no misconduct was proved by the applicant and there was no suppression of material fact which would disqualify the applicant for appoint to the post of Tradesman ‘B’ and accordingly, allowed the application and set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority and being aggrieved by the order allowing the application, the respondents before the tribunal have preferred this writ petition.

4. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is as to whether, having regard to the facts of the case, there was suppression of material fact by making an application to the post of Tradesman ‘B’ by not mentioning the additional qualification of having acquired Diploma in Mechanical Engineering which would amount to misconduct which would entail disciplinary proceedings. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision of the tribunal is contrary to the judicial propriety and discipline as the Division Bench decision passed in OA No. 434/2003 dated 30-4-2003 was binding on the decision of the Bench decided the present case out of which this writ petition arises and it was not open to the subsequent Division Bench to hold that the order passed by the Division Bench in the earlier order be referred to the higher bench. Identical questions on identical facts regarding qualification at the time of filing the application to the post of Tradesman ‘B’ that is Diploma in engineering had come up before the tribunal, wherein the tribunal had upheld the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and had dismissed the application in OA No. 434/2003 was relied upon by the petitioner herein in the application filed by the respondent herein, which order impugned in this case but the same has been set aside by this court. Wherefore, the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the tribunal that the application is entitled to be allowed is justified and it is unnecessary to go into the question of judicial propriety or discipline on the part of the Division Bench in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, following the reasons assigned in the order passed in WP No. 50850/2004, this writ petition is dismissed setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority imposing penalty of reducing the salary by seven stages with cumulative effect.