Original Application No. 162 of 2012 & Contempt Petition No. 42 of 2012 in Original Application No. 162 of 2012. Case: 1. K. Anoop Sagar, S/o. P. Kesavan Namboodiri, aged 33 years, Field Publicity Officer, Directorate of Field Publicity, Ministry of Information, Government of India, Moosa Apartment, Makkani, South Bazar, Kannur-670 002, 2. Anoop Sagar K., S/o. P. Kesavan Namboodiri, aged 33 years, Field Publicity Officer, Directorate of Field Publicity, Ministry of Information, Government of India, Moosa Apartment, Makkani, South Bazar, Kannur-670 002 Vs 1. Union of India, rep: by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Room NO. 747, 'A' Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001 and Ors., 2. Shri S. Subramanian, age & father's name not known, working as Deputy Director, Directorate of Field Publicity, Regional Office, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, Uppalam Road, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Original Application No. 162 of 2012 & Contempt Petition No. 42 of 2012 in Original Application No. 162 of 2012 |
| Judges | Mr. P.R. Raman, Judicial Member and Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 309 |
| Judgement Date | November 16, 2012 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
By Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member, (Ernakulam Bench)
-
The applicant is a Senior Grade Indian Information Service Group-B officer now working as Field Publicity Officer, Directorate of Field Publicity, Cannanore. According to him the 4th respondent in collusion with the 3rd respondent without disclosing any order issued by the 3rd respondent or directions issued or even delegation of powers to do so has been harassing him from the 1st day of joining duty. The 3rd respondent has issued Annexure A3 order imposing dies non for five spells of absence detailed therein and directed the Accountant, RO to effect recovery from two months' pay from January, 2012 onwards. Aggrieved the applicant has filed this O.A. for the following reliefs:-
i) call for the records leading to Annexure A3 order;
ii) declare that the Annexure A3 order is unsustainable in the eyes of law;
iii) issue appropriate order or direction setting aside the Annexure A3 order;
iv) declare that the respondents are liable to refund the recovered amounts pursuant to impugned Annexure A3 order to the applicant immediately with interest of 8% per annum from the date of recovery to the date of repayment to the applicant;
v) grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and necessary;
AND
vi) grant the cost of this Original Application.
The applicant contended that the Regional Head (3rd respondent) has not issued any charge memo or given him an opportunity to explain before treating the spells of absence as dies non. The 1st respondent is the appointing authority and disciplinary authority. The power vested with the 1st respondent has not been delegated either to the 3rd and 4th respondents. The 4th respondent is lower in rank to the applicant. The 3rd respondent has kept studied silence failing himself in discharging his duty of being the regional head. The impugned order violates the mandates of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 309 of the Constitution of India. The letter of the 4th respondent has contradicted the impugned order. There is a long delay of 12 to 15 months in making the allegation of absence against him. No prescribed procedure has been followed before declaring dies non and ordering recovery of amount from the salary of the applicant. An amount of Rs. 21,929/- has been recovered from his salary. This amount is liable to be returned to the applicant with interest.
-
The respondents in their reply statement submitted that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial