it2025_00900 — When proceedings were conducted over the misconduct of an officer for his alleged omission to perform his duties properly in a supervisory capacity, his direct involvement in his subordinates' misdemeanours is not necessary to penalize him for such omission of supervisory duties

When proceedings were conducted over the misconduct of an officer for his alleged omission to perform his duties properly in a supervisory capacity, his direct involvement in his subordinates' misdemeanours is not necessary to penalize him for such omission of supervisory duties — The chunk is about an appeal filed by an applicant against the punishment imposed on him, which was reduced to censure by the Appellate Authority. The applicant argues that the Appellate Authority di... — Facts: The Applicant was issued with a charge-sheet dated 30-11-2009, by the Respondent No. 3 i.e. Headquarter CE Southern Command, Pune with the allegation that Applicant while performing duties of Superintendent B/R Grade II (JE Civil) under GE Dehu Road from 23-11-1993 to 3-6-2002 was responsible for the execution of C.A. No. CEPZ/BOM/22 of 1995-1996 "Provision of perimeter wall at AD Dehu Road" and that he had failed in proper execution and supervision of the contract, due to which the portion of perimeter wall collapsed and by this act he had failed to maintain devotion to duty, thereby violating the Rule 3(1)

(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. On the denial by the Applicant of the charges, inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was conducted and the IO rendered his report holding that the findings have not been proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority not having progressed further in the matter, the Applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 238 of 2014, seeking directions to the Disciplinary Authority to take a final decision in the matter, in a time-bound manner. This OA was disposed of by an Order, dated 7-5-2013 directing the Disciplinary Authority to take. a final decision on the inquiry report within a period of three months. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 i.e. Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement Memo, dated 20-7-2013 and the Applicant submitted his reply to the Memo of disagreement on 30-9-2013 and stated therein that the daily records for subject project execution viz. Works Diary, Site order book and work stage passing register, etc. were held and maintained by one Shri G.G. Kulkarni, Superintendent B/R, Grade I and Applicant was never allowed to make entries during the progress of the work and also directed to perform duties for other works at different projects besides the project in question as such the charge alleged is false and incorrect. Applicant submits that Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Disciplinary Authority did not consider his reply in proper perspective and proceeded to impose a punishment of "Reduction of one increment of pay for a period of one year' with further directions that during this period, he will not earn any increment and the penalty will have the effect of postponing his future increment. The same was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide Order, dated 5-12-2013. Aggrieved by this order of punishment, Applicant submitted his statutory appeal, dated 13-1-2014, to the Appellate Authority. Applicant's Statutory Appeal was considered by the Appellate Authority, who then proceeded to record his findings wherein he was of the view that the Disciplinary Authority had erred in imposing punishment which he reduced to that of "Censure" as mentioned in the impugned Order, dated 4-12-2014. In the OA it has been contended that the Appellate Authority has not applied its mind and repeated the same contents of Disagreement Memo and for this Applicant has requested for personal hearing but Appellate Authority has not given him an opportunity for the personal hearing which is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Respondents is illegal and bad in law. Respondents have filed their reply and they have stated that Applicant has been rightly punished as it is an admitted fact that Applicant was posted therein when the project was got done and as such he cannot be entirely absolved of his responsibility of supervision of execution of work while assisting the Superintendent B/R Grade-I. Applicant in rejoinder submitted that Respondents have failed to give any legal justification as to the disagreement note against the IO's report. Respondents have also relied upon findings of the Staff Court of Enquiry which is a fact finding body in its preliminary enquiry proceedings. In fact, the Staff Court of Enquiry has not blamed the Applicant for any lapses and also has not mentioned his name anywhere in the report but they have mentioned some other names of responsible persons. As regards O.A. No. 443 of 2015 which was filed sequentially to the O.A. No. 96 of 2015, the Applicant is aggrieved by the inaction of the Respondents in not placing his name at the appropriate place in the seniority list of the Junior Engineer (Civil) and also not considering or granting him promotion to post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) which is a Gazetted 'B' (Class II post), from the post of Jr. Engineer (Civil), in spite of large number of juniors having been promoted, ignoring claim of the Applicant. The fact of junior having been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer to the exclusion of the Applicant has also been highlighted. Respondents have filed their reply and have submitted that as a consequence of the departmental proceeding which was set in motion against the Applicant from 28-11-2009 eventually culminated in imposition of penalty of "Censure" by the Appellate Authority on 4-1-2014, the question of considering the Applicant for promotion at par with his junior Shri N. Rajendran to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) does not arise as the promotion of junior was on 23-7-2011 when the Applicant was under cloud. Applicant having already joined as Assistant Engineer, the question of retrospective promotion does not arise. The Respondents have also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of state of M.P. and another v. I. A. Qureshi reported in [ (1998) 9 SCC 261 ], wherein in Para. No. 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held: "Censure" is one of the minor penalties that can be imposed on a Government servant. It cannot, therefore, be said that the penalty of censure which was imposed on the Respondent in the departmental proceedings was not a penalty. Once it is held that a minor penalty has been imposed on the respondent in the departmental proceedings, ..... sealed cover containing recommendations of the DPC could not be opened and the recommendations of the DPC could not be given effect. The Respondent can only be considered for promotion on prospective basis from a date after the conclusion of the departmental proceedings."