UNION OF INDIA Vs VIKRAMBHAI MAGANBHAI CHAUDHARI
Bench: P. SATHASIVAM,A.K. PATNAIK, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-002602-002602 / 2006
Diary number: 28246 / 2005
Advocates: V. K. VERMA Vs
VISHWAJIT SINGH
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2602 OF 2006
Union of India & Ors. .... Appellant (s)
Versus
Vikrambhai Maganbhai Chaudhari .... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) This appeal by Union of India is directed against the
final judgment and order dated 12.08.2005 passed by the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil
Application No. 16575 of 2005 whereby the High Court
dismissed the application of the appellants herein
upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal
(in short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 333 of 2004 wherein
the Tribunal by its order dated 20.04.2005 had quashed
1
and set aside Notification No. C-11011/1/2001-VP dated
29.05.2001.
2) Brief facts:
(a) On 08.06.2000, Vikrambhai Maganbhai Chaudhari,
the respondent herein, while working as M.O. Postal
Assistant, Bardoli, refused to accept M.O. forms along
with the amounts tendered by Shri P.N. Singh, Shri H.K.
Tiwari and Shri R.C. Pande for booking of money orders.
Later, Mr. K.H. Gamit, Assistant Post Master, Bardoli and
his immediate supervisor instructed him to accept the
above said Money Orders in writing through office order
book but the respondent did not obey the orders.
Accordingly, departmental action was initiated against
him and he was suspended by order of Superintendent of
Post Office, Bardoli vide Memo No. B-1/PF/VMC/2000.
(b) However, on 23.06.2000, the suspension order of the
respondent was revoked and disciplinary action was
initiated against the respondent under Rule 16 of Central
2
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Vide Memo
No. P1/4(2)/05/01-02 dated 17.10.2001, the disciplinary
authority awarded punishment of ‘Censure’ to the
respondent.
(c) Thereafter, the case was taken up for review by the
Chief Post Master General, Ahmedabad under Rule 29 of
the Rules and he directed the Superintendent of Post
Office, Bardoli to initiate disciplinary proceedings against
the respondent under Rule 14 of the Rules and on
completion send the matter to him for further action.
Accordingly, a notice was issued to the respondent.
(d) Challenging the proceedings, the respondent filed
Original Application No. 333 of 2004 before the Tribunal,
Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad. By order dated
20.04.2005, the Tribunal allowed the application filed by
the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the
appellants herein filed Special Civil Application being No.
3
16575 of 2005 before the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad. The High Court, by impugned order,
dismissed the application filed by the appellants herein.
Aggrieved by the said order and judgment, the appellants
herein have filed this appeal by way of special leave
petition before this Court.
3) Heard Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned ASG for the
appellants. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, learned counsel filed
appearance on behalf of the respondent but none
appeared at the time of hearing.
4) Mr. Chandhiok, learned ASG after taking us through
Rule 29 of the Rules submitted that the Tribunal was not
justified in quashing the Notification dated 29.05.2001 and
the High Court has also committed an error in confirming the
same. He further submitted that the High Court and the
Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the Notification in
question does not become bad merely because the time limit
has not been provided and according to him, even though Rule
29(1)(vi) provides that such order shall also specify the time
4
within which this power should be exercised in view of Clause
(v) which provides six months’ outer limit for reviewing the
order, the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal and the High
Court cannot be sustained.
5) Inasmuch as the Tribunal and the High Court granted
relief in favour of the respondent on the basis of the
interpretation of Rule 29(1)(vi) and the Notification dated
29.05.2001, it is desirable to refer the same. The Notification
reads as under:-
“Ministry of Communications [Department of Posts]
New Delhi, the 29th May, 2001 NOTIFICATION
No. So….. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (VI) of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the President hereby specifies that in the case of a government servant serving in the Department of Posts, for whom the appellate authority is subordinate to the authority designated as the Principal Chief Postmaster General or the Chief Postmaster General (other than the Chief Postmaster General of Senior Administrative Grade) of a Circle, the said Principal Chief Postmaster General or the said Chief Postmaster General, as the case may be, shall be the revising authority for the purpose of exercising the powers under the said Rule 29.
[No. C-11011/1/2001-VP] Sd/-
[B.P. Sharma] Director (VP)”
5
The relevant clauses of Rule 29 are as under:-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules.
(i) the President; or
(ii) The Comptroller and Auditor-General, in the case of a Government servant serving in the India Audit and Accounts Department; or
(iii) the Member (Personnel) Postal Services Board in the case of a Government Servant serving in or under the Postal Services Board and (Adviser (Human Resources Development), Department of Telecommunication) in the case of Government Servant serving in or under the Telecommunication Board); or
(iv) the Head of a Department directly under the Central Government in the case of a Government Servant serving in a department or office (not being the Secretariat or the Posts and Telegraphs Board) under the control of such head of a Department; or
(v) the appellant authority, within six months of the date of order proposed to be (revised); or
(vi) any other authority specified in this behalf by the President by a general or special order, and within such time as may be specified in such general or special order; may at any time either on his or its own motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and revise any order made under these rules…..
(2) No proceeding for revision shall be commenced until after
(i) the expiry of the period of limitation for an appeal, or (ii) the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has
been preferred.”
6) As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the above sub-Rule
(1) of Rule 29 indicates 6 categories of revisional authorities.
6
If we go further it shows that while no period is mentioned in
sub-clauses (i) to (iv), sub-Clause (v) refers to a period of six
months from the date of order proposed to be revised. Since
order was passed by exercising power under sub-Clause (vi),
we have to see whether in the Notification specifying an
authority a time limit has been mentioned or even in the
absence of the same, the outer limit can be availed by
exercising power under sub-Clause (v). According to learned
ASG, there is no need to specify the period in the Notification
authorizing concerned authority to call for the record for any
enquiry and revise any order made under the Rules. We are
unable to accept the said claim for the following reasons.
7) It is to be noted that in cases where the appellate
authority seeks to review the order of the disciplinary
authority, the period fixed for the purpose is six months of the
date of the order proposed to be revised. This is clear from
sub-Clause (v) of sub-Rule 1 of Rule 29. On the other hand,
Clause (vi) confers similar powers on such other authorities
which may be specified in that behalf by the President by a
general or special order and the said authority has to
7
commence the proceedings within the time prescribed therein.
Even though Rule 29(1)(vi) provides that such order shall also
specify the time within which the power should be exercised,
the fact remains that no time limit has been prescribed in the
Notification. We have already pointed out that no period has
been mentioned in the Notification. The argument that even in
the absence of specific period in the Notification in view of
Clause (v), the other authority can also exercise such power
cannot be accepted. To put it clear, sub-Clause (v) applies to
appellate authority and Clause (vi) to any other authority
specified by the President by a general or special order for
exercising power by the said authority under sub-Clause (vi).
There must be specified period and the power can be exercised
only within the period so prescribed.
8) Inasmuch as the Notification dated 29.05.2001 has not
specified any time limit within which power under Rule
29(1)(vi) is exercisable by the authority specified, we are of the
view that such Notification is not in terms with Rule 29 and
the Tribunal is fully justified in quashing the same. The High
Court has also rightly confirmed the said conclusion by
8
dismissing the Special Application of the appellants and
quashing the Notification on the ground that it did not specify
the time limit. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
...…………………………………J. (P. SATHASIVAM)
...…………………………………J. (A.K. PATNAIK)
NEW DELHI; JULY 1, 2011.
9