it2025_00135 — Filing of O.A. before Central Administrative Tribunal without availing the statutory appeal remedy provided under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is not maintainable. O.A. liable to be dismissed

Filing of O.A. before Central Administrative Tribunal without availing the statutory appeal remedy provided under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is not maintainable. O.A. liable to be dismissed — This chunk is a part of a judgement where the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed an Original Application filed by an employee challenging the disciplinary order passed against him due to his f... — Facts: The Applicant was transferred from Jhansi to Banda on 25-1-2008 and he claimed to have resided in rented accommodation at Bangalipara, Banda. The Applicant claimed that even though he submitted a rent agreement, the Respondents stopped paying House Rent Allowance (HRA) from April 2009 and started deducting ₹ 1,000 monthly from his salary without prior notice. The Applicant filed O.A. No. 1316 of 2009, which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Tribunal on 12-11-2009 with directions to submit a fresh representation. His representation was rejected by the Respondent on 15-2-2010 with an order to recover ₹ 12,036 which was later set aside by the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 1081 of 2010 on 29-4-2011, and the amount was also refunded. Subsequently, the Applicant sought interest on the refunded amount. However, a charge-sheet was issued on 10-1-2012 reopening the matter. Despite his reply, a fresh recovery order of ₹ 16,000 was passed on 25-6-2012. The Respondents contended that the Applicant illegally occupied the Tiffin Room at Banda RMS from January 2008 to April 2009, violating CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, justifying disciplinary action and recovery. The Applicant challenged the legality of the recovery and disciplinary proceedings in the present Original Application. The Respondents filed counter-reply stating that the Applicant joined Banda RMS on 25-1-2008 and was temporarily allowed to reside in the Tiffin Room by the Sub-Record Officer due to lack of immediate accommodation. He was instructed to vacate the room within a week, but he continued to occupy it until April 2009. As the matter was taken up by the Divisional Secretary, All India Union R-III, an inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Superintendent, Rail Mail 'X' Division, Jhansi who confirmed the unauthorized occupation through his Report, dated 27-1-2010. Based on this, the Respondents stopped paying House Rent Allowance (HRA) and initiated recovery for the period of unauthorized stay. The recovery Order, dated 15-2-2010 was initially challenged and set aside by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1081 of 2010, leading to a refund of ₹ 12,036. However, since the Applicant was found to have violated Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, disciplinary proceedings were initiated. As a result, he was penalized with recovery of ₹ 16,000 to be deducted in instalments @ ₹ 1,000 per month as per Order, dated 25-6-2012. The Respondents contend that the penalty is justified and the Original Application deserves to be dismissed. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that during the inquiry proceeding, the complainant was never examined and that false statements were obtained under the threat and as such the entire proceedings stand vitiated. It was also contended that the Disciplinary Authority also failed to consider the rent deed/ affidavit as submitted by the Applicant and that no proper inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the Learned counsel for the Applicant and submitted that there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.