Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Circular 34 & CWC Notification

Dear Comrades

Please find Circular 34-2010 and Notification for CWC meeting posted below.

With greetings,

Sd/-
M. S. Raja
Secretary General
ALL INDIA AUDIT &
ACCOUNTS ASSOCIATION
CSV WARRIER BHAWAN
15/1089-90, VASUNDHARA, VASUNDHARA (P.O.), Dt. GHAZIABAD
(U.P), PIN-201012
Ph:
0120-2881727/4101593/ 0 – 98681 45667
E-mail:
auditflag@gmail.com
Website:
www.auditflag.blogspot.com
Reference: AIA/Circular-34/2010
Dated: 28th December 2010

To
Unit Secretaries,
Members & Spl. Invitees – NE &
Members of Women's Committee

Dear Comrades,
The programme given vide Circular 31-2010 for observance of 22nd
December 2010 as 'Replace Qualification Pay with Four Advance
Increments (on passing of departmental examination) Day' has evoked
good response, as per the reports so far received at Head Quarters.
As stated in Circular 31 the second stage of the campaign for
replacing the qualification pay with four advance increments is to
start from 3rd January 2011 – signature campaign week..
All the units may take steps for effective campaign for the
successful implementation of the signature campaign from 3rd January
2011 to 7th January 2011. The format for the signature campaign is
given elsewhere in this circular.
MEETING WITH DAI
Meeting with DAI will be on 18th January 2010. We have submitted the
following agenda items for discussion (vide letter No AIA/B-1/81/2010
date 24th Dec 2010).
1. Replacement of Qualification Pay with four advance increments
2. Permission for AAO (adhoc) to negotiate incentive exam
3. Simplification of syllabus for Information Technology (Theory) for
SAS and incentive examinations
4. Grant of incentive to Accountant/Auditor & SA for discharging the
duties of DEOs
5. Stoppage of transfer on tour basis in NE Region offices
6. Declaring the SOGE (A&E) – common paper - passed candidates of A&E)
offices of Kerala & Tamil Nadu as SAS passed
7. Stop intervention in the day to day functioning of the Associations
and extension of functional facility.
CWC MEETING
Notification for CWC meeting has already been dispatched. The venue
shall be Gandhi Peace Foundation Hall near ITO. Accommodation has been
arranged at Garhwal Bhawan for 24th & 25th February 2010.
Accommodation for 23rd Feb could not be arranged because central
trade unions have already booked all available accommodation in Delhi
for the Parliament March on 23rd February 2010.
WOMEN'S CONVENTION
The Women's Convention being organised by the Confederation would be
held at Kolkata on 7-8 Feb 2011. (Circular 32-2010)
All Units may intimate the HQr of the number of women delegates being
deputed for the Convention with their names and details of arrival.
Kindly remember that COC WB has to be intimated about the number of
delegates etc not later than 10th Jan 2011.
With regards
Yours fraternally


(M.S.Raja)
Secretary General
Format for Signature Campaign

To
P(AG)/DGA/DA/DDA
…………..


Sir,
Please find enclosed herewith a memorandum signed members of this
Association addressed to the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9
DDU Marg, New Delhi-110124.
It is requested that the memorandum may please be forwarded to CAG of India.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully

(……………..)
General Secretary
To
Hon'ble Comptroller & Auditor General of India,
9 DDU Marg,
New Delhi-110124

Sir,
The High Court of Madras in their judgement dated 30.12. 2007 in writ
petition No 13258 of 2003 (Union of India & others vs. A Palanivel &
others have upheld the order of 20.11.2002 passed by CAT Madras Bench
made on OA No 229 of 2002. The Supreme Court of India has dismissed
the SLP filed against this judgement of Madras High Court,

According to this judgement, all auditors on passing the Departmental
Confirmatory examination may be granted 4 advance increments.

Since this is a judgement in rem, it is requested that it may be
implemented in respect of Auditors and Accountants of IA&AD.

It is further requested that 4(four) advance increments replacing the
existing qualification pay may please be granted to all
auditors/accountants from the date following the date on which they
have qualified in the departmental confirmatory examination.

Thanking you in anticipation,

Yours faithfully.

ALL INDIA AUDIT & ACCOUNTS ASSOCIATION
CSV WARRIER BHAWAN
15/1089-90, VASUNDHARA, VASUNDHARA (P.O.), Dt. GHAZIABAD
(U.P), PIN-201012
Ph:
0120-2881727/4101593/ 0 – 98681 45667
E-mail:
auditflag@gmail.com
Website:
www.auditflag.blogspot.com

A-4/2010-11

23rd December 2010

N O T I F I
C A T I O N

It is here-by notified, under Article 9 D of the Constitution of All
India Audit & Accounts Association, that the Central Working Committee
of All India Audit & Accounts Association will meet at New Delhi on
24th & 25th February 2011 to transact the following business.


Agenda

1. To consider developments in the Departmental Front and to decide
future course of action there-of.

2. To discuss organisational front and to take appropriate decisions there-on.

3. To consider developments in the Common front of Central Govt
Employees and to take decisions there-on.

4. Any other matter with permission of Chair

As per Article 9 D of the Constitution only one delegate per
affiliated Association can attend the CWC meet.

All the affiliates should clear HQr quota upto and including 31st
December 2010 failing which they shall not be entitled either as
delegate or observer. .

The venue of the CWC meeting shall be Gandhi Peace Foundation Hall,
DDU Marg, Near ITO, New Delhi.

Delegation fee of Rs 400/- shall be charged per delegate/observer.

Sd/-
(M. S. Raja)

Secretary General

Article 9D - CENTRAL WORKING COMMITTEE: The Association shall hold
Central Working Committee Meeting, at least once in a calendar year,
represented by the Central Executive Committee Members of the
Association and one delegates from each of the Federating
Associations. The Secretary / General Secretary of the Federating
Associations shall be delegates to the Central Working Committee
Meetings. However, if the Secretary/ General Secretary, for any valid
reason, shall be unable to attend CWC meeting, he/she will nominate
any other representative as delegate. The representative so nominated
by the Secretary/ General Secretary of the Federating Association has
to be an office bearer of the Federating Association and shall have to
produce authority letter of nomination from the natural authorized
delegate i.e. Secretary/ General Secretary.

Note:

Accommodation is arranged at Garhwal Bhawan for 24th & 25th February 2011.
********

Monday, December 27, 2010

Circular 33-2010

Dear Comrades

Please find Circular 33-2010 posted below.

With greetings

M. S. Raja
Secretary General
ALL INDIA AUDIT & ACCOUNTS ASSOCIATION
CSV WARRIER BHAWAN
15/1089-90, VASUNDHARA, VASUNDHARA (P.O.), Dt. GHAZIABAD
(U.P), PIN-201012
Ph: 0120-2881727/4101593/ 0 – 98681 45667
E-mail:
auditflag@gmail.com
Website:
www.auditflag.blogspot.com

Reference: AIA/Circular-33/2010
Dated: 22nd December 2010

To
Unit Secretaries,
Members & Spl. Invitees – NE &
Members of Women's Committee


Dear Comrades,


Dear Comrades,
In late 1950s and 1960s the All India Audit & Accounts Association
was functioning from a rented accommodation. In the second half of
1960, an organisational decision was taken to have own accommodation
in Delhi and the funds were raised. But the situation after the one
day strike on 19th September 1968 forced the organisation to spend the
amount raised for own building to meet the exigency of victimisation.

Then it was in 1986, when Com: CSV Warrier was the Secretary General,
the Association once again started working for having own
accommodation. Com Warrier applied for a plot under Ghaziabad
Development Authority. Another application was made in the name of Com
SK Vyas (the then President of the Association) also. A plot was
allotted in the name of Com Warrier, in the draw of lot that followed,
at Kaushambi just inside Ghaziabad – few yards away from Anand Vihar
ISBT.

By the time the allotment materialised Com Warrier had relinquished
the post of Secretary General and Com SMA Jinnah had taken over as
Secretary General. The other formalities were completed and the plot
was acquired during the time of Com Jinnah. Com Warrier was insisting
on transferring the title deed of the plot and formation of trust
which somehow dragged on.

The construction of a building did not materialise for many reasons
and the cost went escalating. By the time, in 1994 the UP Housing
Board came up with another scheme of ready built houses for
residential purposes in Vasundhara, Ghaziabad. The All India Audit &
Accounts Association decided to apply for one house. As per the
Ghaziabad Development Authority condition the organization could not
apply for allotment of the House. Hence, it was decided to submit the
application for allotment of house in the name of the then secretary
general, who happened to be Com A.B. Sen and it was decided that the
application would be made in the name of AB Sen, the then Secretary
General. With the help of CITU, we could get the house allotted in the
name of AB Sen, the then Secretary General. The National Executive
took the appropriate decisions which were subsequently ratified by the
Working Committee. For this purpose a call for raising the building
fund was given to all the affiliated units, which was hugely responded
by the units. The funds were raised and the payment was made. Thus the
All India Audit & Accounts Association had its own head quarter at
House No 1089, Sector 15, Vasundhara, Dist. Ghaziabad.

Simultaneously, the Association decided to buy one more house, ie the
adjoining one -1090- from CITU which was allotted in the name of Com
MK Pandhe and to meet the expenditure, it was decided to dispose off
the plot allotted and acquired in the name of com Warrier. The
decision was communicated to Com Warrier and he – who had a massive
heart attack by the time – complied with the organisational decision
and authorised the then Secretary General AB Sen through a power of
attorney to execute the sales deed.

In December 1995, Com MK Pandhe inaugurated Auditlekha Bhawan at
15/1089-1090, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, UP and from 1997 the All India
Audit & Accounts Association started functioning from there.

But the formal transfer of the houses to the Association remained to
be done. It was only after 2004 the process of completing a legal
mechanism so as to enable transfer the houses to the Association were
seriously pursued. After continuous discussion and the persistent
efforts of the National Executive Committee, constitution for a Trust
was approved by the Special Conference in October 2008. The trust -
named after Com CSV Warrier – was registered in January 2009.

The National Executive Committee has been consistently pursuing the
transfer of both the houses to CSV Warrier memorial trust since then.
Com MK Pandhe transferred the house no 1090 to CSV Warrier Memorial
Trust on 11th January 2010.

Com. AB Sen had assured to a delegation of NE that he would transfer
the house once Com Pandhe transfers the house 1090. But the efforts of
the NE members did not succeed even after Com. M. K. Pandhe
transferred the building. Com Nageswara Rao, Additional Secretary
General of the Association, who was authorised by the NE to discuss
with AB Sen, reported to the National Executive Committee in August
2010 that his efforts are not being responded to properly by Com AB
Sen.

As AB Sen had been keeping away from the All India Audit & Accounts
Association and of late been seen with disruptors of audit and
accounts movement, Secretary General requested Com S Radhakrishna, who
was member of the National Executive between 1986 and 1997 and was
also Vice President of the Association during 1989 – 1997, to talk to
AB Sen so as to facilitate the transfer of the house to CSV Warrier
Memorial Trust.

Com Radhakrishna had four rounds of telephonic talk with AB Sen and
finally reported that talks with AB Sen has not yielded the desired
result on transfer of the house. In the meantime an e-mail has been
received from AB Sen stating "vacate my house immediately" (Copy
enclosed). The copy of the e-mail on summary of Com Radhakrishna's
talk with AB Sen is enclosed (with the consent of Com Radhakrishna).
The e-mail is self explanatory. Copy of the letter the Association
addressed to AB Sen is also enclosed.

This may please be reported to the Executive Committee, the activists
and the general membership.

With regards
Yours fraternally

(M.S.Raja)
Secretary General

Com Radhakrishna's letter
Dear Com Raja

I am writing this letter to put records straight regarding the
background and reasons which prompted me to open a dialogue with Com
Sen regarding the property of All India Audit & Accounts Association
located in the 'Vasundhara', Ghaziabad. As you are aware I was a part
of National Executive when both house dwellings in 'Vasundhara'
Ghaziabad where our Hqrs is located at present was purchased and also
had participated in the inaugural function of the building as Vice
President of the Organisation. To meet the conditions of Ghaziabad
Development Authority the NE at that time had taken a decision to
purchase the dwellings in the name of Com Sen and Com Pandhe. The main
source of funds for the purchase of these houses came from the
contributions made by membership all over the country and the extra
realisation of amount we had made by selling of a plot which the
organisation had purchased earlier in the name of Com Warrier then
Secretary General. I have a longing desire that the properties which
was in the name of the individuals must be transferred to the
organization. Now as the Organization in the name of 'Com Warrier I
felt that transfer of properties to the Trust should be completed at
the earliest.. I was also happy when property in the name of Com
Pandhe was promptly transferred. When we along with President Com
Dorai Pandiayan met in Delhi during last week of October 2010 you had
mentioned about some hurdles you are encountering in the transfer of
property which the organization had purchased in the name of Com Sen.
As I had worked with Com Sen in the National Executive and was also
being a party to the decision making process of the organization at
that time I felt whether I could be of any help in removing those
hurdle. You permitted me to go ahead and have a talk with Com Sen.
Based on that clearance I opened a dialogue with Com Sen. After some
initial exchange of views I could understand that some of the claims
of Com Sen even after a lapse of three or four years after his
demitting the office had not been settled. He had also a feeling that
he is being humiliated and being treated shabbily. Based on those
talks when I contacted, you told me that even today he highly
respected by the Organisation and personally by you also. You
clarified that there is only a difference of opinion on certain
perceptions. However I did not go into that issue and only wanted
settlement of the dispute regarding the claims of Com Sen. After this
as promised you had forwarded me the Claims preferred by Com Sen and
Auditors report on those claims. In fact the mail sent by you was
forwarding of the reply you had mailed Com Sen in 2008. After going
through the same I felt instead of going into entire thing there
should be a way out for solving the issue. Considering that Com Sen
had lead the organization for more than a decade as Secretary General
& President and also the sacrifices he had made for the organisation I
felt that this issue to be settled without much heat and light. With
confidence of convincing you, few days back I had made an offer to Com
Sen stating that "I will request Com Raja to settle your claims of
above Rs.4lakh without any interest and he should agree to transfer
the property to the Organisation without any hurdles". The methodology
I had suggested was that you will prepare the cheque in the name of
Com Sen for the entire amount and will be deposited with a person in
whom both Com Sen and you had confidence and the cheque will be handed
over to Com Sen simultaneously with his transferring of property. For
that Com Sen had responded that he requires some time to think about
the proposal and also he would like to discuss with Com Prabhakar
former Finance Secretary of the Organisation. Therefore after few
days gap I contacted Com Sen yesterday (15.12.2010). Com Sen said that
after taking the opinion Com Prabhakar he has come to conclusion that
my proposal is not acceptable to him. He had made lot of sacrifices
for the sake of Organisation already and asking him always to make
sacrifice is not correct. Then I said if the issue is not settled
amicably it may lead to legal complications which are not good for the
Organisations and individuals concerned in the long run. For which he
responded that "what to do" and expressed his helplessness. If
required he is prepared to undergo the complications. Then I
concluded my discussions with him stating that "there is no further
use in my continuing discussions in the mater and I will withdraw from
further negotiations and inform Raja accordingly". He responded
"that's ok".
I have briefly narrated the entire conversations I had with Com Sen on
the matter and I would like to withdraw myself from further
interfering in this matter. Thank you for the confidence you had
reposed in me and I assure you that I am always available to make my
humble contribution at any time as worker of the Organisation. To put
the matter transparently I am forwarding the copy of this letter to
Com Sen for information.
With greetings

Yours fraternally
sradhakrishna
16.12.2010
Copy of e-mail from AB Sen
fromAhi Sen <sen.ahi@rediffmail.com>
toauditflag@gmail.com

dateSun, Nov 21, 2010 at 6:58 PM
subjectRe: Request
mailed-byrediffmail.com
signed-byrediffmail.com

Nov 21

Please vacate my house immediately- A.B.Sen
*****
ALL INDIA AUDIT &
ACCOUNTS ASSOCIATION
CSV WARRIER BHAWAN
15/1089-90, VASUNDHARA, VASUNDHARA (P.O.), Dt. GHAZIABAD
(U.P), PIN-201012
Ph:
0120-2881727/4101593/ 9868145667
E-mail:
auditflag@gmail.com
Website:
www.auditflag.blogspot.com
Reference: AIA/B-9/2010
Date: 3rd November 2010

To
Com AB Sen
15/1093,
Vasundhara-201012
Dt Ghaziabad


Dear Comrade Sen,

Hope this letter will find you in best of health and high spirits.

As a very senior leader of our movement you are fully aware and
actually involved in realising the dream of the membership since 1960s
to have their own building for the All India Audit & Accounts
Association. In realising it concrete steps were taken by you as
Secretary General of the Association in mid-90s which resulted in
acquiring a dwelling unit (1089) under Vasundhara Awas Yojana in
Sector 15, Vasundhara, Dt Ghaziabad (UP) in National Capital Region
(NCR). Again it is because of your vision our Association acquired
adjacent dwelling unit (1090) which was allotted in the name of Com
M.K. Pandhe.

But for certain legal issues involved regarding registration of these
dwelling units in the name of the Association, you were forced to
register the dwelling unit 1089 in your name.

Now the Association has resolved the legal issues and a Trust – CSV
Warrier Memorial Trust – was registered in 2009.

The dwelling unit 1090 has since been transferred through a gift deed
(registered on 11th January 2010) by Com M. K Pandhe to the CSV
Warrier Memorial Trust.

The members of the All India Audit & Accounts Association always
remember you as a leader who realised the dream of having their own
building in the NCR. To complete their dream, legal formality of
transferring the property to the CSV Warrier Memorial Trust (of the
All India Audit & Accounts Association) has to be completed and I
shall be thankful if you can intimate your convenience to complete the
formalities so that the dwelling unit can be transferred at the
earliest to the Trust formed by the All India Audit & Accounts
Association.

With warm greetings,

Yours fraternally

(MS Raja)
Secretary General

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Circular 32-2010

Dear Comrade

Please find Circular 32-2010 posted below

With greetings

(M. S. Raja)
Secretary General

ALL
INDIA AUDIT & ACCOUNTS ASSOCIATION

CSV WARRIER BHAWAN
15/1089-90, VASUNDHARA, VASUNDHARA
(P.O.), Dt. GHAZIABAD (U.P), PIN-201012

Ph: 0120-2881727/4101593/ 0 – 98681 45667

E-mail: auditflag@gmail.com

Website: www.auditflag.blogspot.com

Reference: AIA/Circular-32 /2010
Dated: 21st December
2010

To
Unit Secretaries,
Members & Spl. Invitees – NE &
Members of Women's Committee


Dear Comrades,

CONFEDERATION DEMANDS
REVISION OF WAGES FROM 1.1.2011

Confederation of Central Government Employees and Workers met in its
National Council at Mumbai on 1st December 2010.

The National Council reviewed the participation of the central
government employees in the 7th September strike and concluded that
the participation of central government employees did see less
participation of CG employees vis-à-vis the previous strike. The
Confederation observed that the massive victimisation in IA&AD had its
impact on the participation of Audit & Accounts Employees through out
the country, with its spill over on other organisations in certain
stations. The victimisation in certain circles in postal also
adversely impacted the participation of postal employees in the strike
in those stations.

Discussing over the issues in the national anomaly committee and the
committee set up on MACPS the National Council came to the conclusion
that the government has no intention to settle any of the issues that
agitates the common employees. In effect, none of the issues raised in
the anomaly committee has been settled and no meeting has been held
for nearly 10 months. It was reported by Com SK Vyas that the
anomalies arisen after the 5th CPC were not settled and now the issues
out of SCPC are discussed.

The meeting came to the conclusion that the anomalies arisen from
SCPC recommendations are inherent ones and hence only a fresh wage
revision alone can remove these anomalies altogether. The meeting also
noted that in the organised sector every other segment other than CG
employees do have a wage settlement after 5 years; the CG employees
are left out for 'special treatment'. It is the right of CG employees
for a wage revision in every five year. Also the DA shall be merged
with pay for all purposes as and when it crosses 50%, demanded the
National Council meeting.

The National Council meeting of the Confederation further noted that
the element of Grade Pay is being attempted to be linked to
performance related pay and it has to be fought back. The meeting also
decided to demand doing away with the system of pay band and grade pay
introduced after 6 CPC.

The Meeting adopted a charter of demand on which the entirety
employees are to be mobilised in the days to come. The charter of
demands is:

1. Stop price rise; strengthen Public Distribution System (PDS)
2. Stop down sizing, outsourcing, contractorisation, corporatisation
and privatisation of governmental functions.
3. Fill Up all vacant posts and create posts on functional requirements
4. Revise wages of Central Government Employees with effect from
1.1.2011 and every five years thereafter.
5. Scrap the New Pension Scheme and extend the statutory defined
benefit Pension to all Central Government Employees irrespective of
the date of recruitment.
6. Regularise the Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS), daily rated workers,
contingent and casual workers by bringing about a definite scheme of
regularisation
7. Remove restriction imposed on Compassionate appointment (end the
discrimination compassionate ground appointment between the Railway
Worker and other CGEs)
8. Stop the move to introduce the productivity linked wage system,
Performance Related Pay, introduce Productivity Linked Bonus in all
departments; remove the ceiling for bonus computation
9. Settle all items of anomalies (including the MACP related
anomalies) raised in the National Anomaly and Departmental Anomaly
Committee with in a fixed time frame of two months, set up the anomaly
committees in those Departments where it has not been set up till date
with the Standing Committee members of National Council, convene the
meeting of the Departmental Council in all Ministries and Department
once in three month as envisaged in the JCM scheme
10. Make the right to strike a legal right and stop curtailment of TU rights
11. Implement all arbitration awards
12. Raise the interest rate for GPF; Revise the OTA and Night Duty
Allowance and stitching and clothing rates of uniforms
13. Merger DA with Pay for all purposes including pension as and when
the DA rates cross 50% mark
14. Vacate all Trade Union victimisations.
Confederation shall prepare campaign material and circulate the same
very shortly.

LAUNCH INTENSIVE CAMPAIN;

EDUCATE THE MEMBERSHIP;
MOBILISE THEM &
PREPARE THEM FOR STRUGGLE

The CHQ of All India Audit & Accounts Association endorses all the
decisions taken in the meeting of the National Council of
Confederation held at Mumbai on 1st December 2010. Confederation
Circular 22 is enclosed.
The decisions taken in the National Council of Confederation gives us
the right opportunity to put our organisational machinery into action
and go to the mass of employees in full swing. The enclosed
Confederation circular gives a road map for the actions in the days to
come – campaigns to mobilisation for parliament march and strike.

Every Unit should take special effort to take the message of the
National Council of Confederation to the mass of employees

WOMEN'S
CONVENTION AT KOLKATA

Confederation National Council has decided to hold Convention of
Women employees at Kolkata on 7th and 8th February 2011. The following
units may arrange to mobilise women comrades for the Convention.

Audit & Accounts Association, Kerala – 3,.Audit Cat II & III, Chennai
– 3, Accounts Cat II&III, Chennai- 2, Accounts Cat III, Hyderabad – 2,
Audit COC, Mumbai – 4, Accounts Cat 2 & 3 Nagpur -2, P&T Audit, Nagpur
1, HP Civil Accounts Association -2, Accounts Brotherhood, & AAO
Association, Allahabad -2, Audit & Accounts Units, Jaipur -2, Accounts
Cat 2 & 3, Orissa -2, Assam & NE region Units -5

CWC MEET IN NEW
DELHI ON 24-25 FEBRUARY 2011

The Central Working Committee meeting of the Association would be
held at New Delhi on 24-25 February 2011. Notification in this regard
is being issued separately.

WORKERS RALLY
ON 23RD FEBRUARY 2011

The National Council of Confederation endorsed the decision of the
Central Trade Unions to organise a massive rally at New Delhi on the
opening Day of Parliament ie 23rd February 2011.

Our units may take lead in mobilizing the Central Government
employees under the banner of local Confederation (COC) for the
success of the rally.

With regards


Yours fraternally

(M.S.Raja)
Secretary General

CONFEDERATION OF
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS
Manishinath Bhawan, A.2.95 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. 110 027.
Website: confederationhq.blogspot.com
mailto:E.mail%3Aconfederation06@yahoo.co.in
Phone: 2510 5324 Cell: 9811048303
Conf/22 /2010
Dated: 6th December, 2010
Dear Comrade,

The National Council meeting of the Confederation was held at DGFASLI
Central Labour Institute Chunabatti Road, Sion, Mumbai 400 022 on Ist
December, 2010 as per the notice issued on 11th November, 2010.
Detailed minutes of the meeting indicating the names of participants
and the submissions made by the comrades who participated in the
discussions will be issued separately later. We convey the decision
taken on each item of agenda subjected to deliberation at the meeting.
The meeting was presided over by Com.S.K.Vyas, President, Confederation.
Com.K.K.N. Kutty, Secretary General informed the house before the
agenda was taken up for discussion that the BSNL employees are on
strike and the strike is slated to continue for three days against the
attitude of the Government and its concerted efforts to make BSNL a
sick unit to pave way for the private telecom providers to push BSNL
out of business so that they can amass profit at the cost of Indian
people. He explained various steps taken by the Government in this
regard and how the BSNL was not permitted to even purchase technology
and material so that they would be able to compete effectively with
other private players in the field. He also informed the house that
the Government has again taken up the issue of disinvestment of 30% of
BSNL shares. The house adopted a resolution expressing its solidarity
with the striking workers of BSNL and the Secretary General was asked
to convey the same to the leaders of the BSNL.Employees' Union and
place the same on Confederation website. ( Kindly see the resolution
placed on the website)
The meeting approved the agenda for discussion and accepted the
proposal of Com. President to club item No.1 and 7 together as also
Item No. 2 and 6.
Item No. 1 and 5
The review discussion on the extent of participation of CGEs in the
general strike of Working class on 7th September, 2010 was extensive
and the comrades who took part in the discussion did give wide ranging
details of the efforts, undertaken, the success and failure, strength
and weakness. The consensus was that the participation despite the
positive feature of the INTUC unions joining the strike could have
been better. It noted that some of the State Committees and
affiliates had not c concentrated on the campaign, to elicit the
conscious and active participation of the grass root level members.
The feeling of the employees especially in the Northern States that
the issues specific to central government employees had not been
addressed could not be effectively eradicated. Besides, the importance
of the struggle against the present economic policies, its cataclysmic
effect on the conditions of living of the working people, the impetus
it provides to the organizational efficacy and capacity could not be
effectively brought home in these States. Wherever such efforts had
been undertaken the response has been, the meeting noted, very good.
The meeting noted the efforts of the Chennai COC in reaching out to
the members by organizing campaign meetings and distribution of
pamphlets etc. in residential colonies. The vehicle Jathas and
district conventions organized by the Kerala State Committee and its
efforts in reaching out to the grass root level workers came in for
appreciation. The West Bengal Comrades explained in detail of the
steps taken by the State COC in calling the meeting of all Secretaries
of the units of the affiliates, distribution of centrally prepared
pamphlets, organizing gate meetings prior to the strike and deploying
active workers on the day of strike in front of all offices etc. to
make the strike participation total in the State.
The meeting noted that the large scale victimization in the offices of
the Accountant General and in certain offices of the Postal Department
had an adverse impact in mobilizing the employees especially in these
organizations. In the light of the deliberations, the meeting
decided:
i. to formulate a charter of demands on CGE specific issues
ii. To continue the campaign to stress the necessity of the
participation in the general trade union action against the neo
liberal economic policies, which are the root causes in non settlement
of the demands
iii. To take steps to revamp the functioning of the State Committees
and for that objective in view convene (a) meeting of all State
Committees to ensure that the annual conference and election of the
State Committees are held within the specified time (b)to chalk out
ways and means to help the State Committees to bring about regular
democratic functioning and interaction with the affiliated unions (c)
to ensure that the communication between the CHQ and State Units is
strengthened (d) the circulars are translated into vernacular and
distributed. The said meeting will be convened on 24th Feb. 2010 at
New Delhi in which the Chq. Sectt. Members will take part.
iv. To have larger participation of CGEs in the 23rd Feb. March to
Parliament by
a) Requesting all State Committees to immediately organize state
convention of all affiliated units and enlisting the comrades who are
to be deployed for participating in the march to parliament on 23rd
Feb. 2010.
b) The CHQ in consultation with the State Committees will determine
the number of participants from each State
c) Larger mobilization will be ensured from the States of Delhi,
Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab, U.P. H.P. and Madhya Pradesh.
d) The CHQ will discuss with the States Committee of the above States
of the finances required for arranging buses etc.
Agenda Item No. 2 and 6.
i. The meeting noted that the real wages of Central Government
employees have eroded significantly in as much as the inflation had
raised the prices of essential commodities especially of food items
beyond 175% whereas the DA compensation had been only to the extent of
45%. The way in which the Govt. had been dilly dallying the anomaly
issues of the 6th CPC has indicated unambiguously that it will have
the same fate of the 5th CPC anomalies. By January, 1st, 2011. the DA
component in the emoluments of CGEs will cross over 50%. The JCM
functioning both at the National and Departmental level has
deteriorated and meetings have become extremely irregular whereas at
the Departmental level it has become almost defunct. Many affiliates
of the Confederation have complained of the non- functioning of the
JCM forum for one reason or the other. The meeting also noted that
there had been no recommendation of the 6th CPC on the periodicity of
wage revision and in the case of PSU the Government had to concede
their demand for wage agreements in every five year. In view of these
factors, the meeting adopted a resolution to demand wage revision on
the expiry of the five year period i.e. with effect from 1.1.2011.
The meeting decided to undertake intensive campaign on this issue
throughout the country.
ii. This apart the meeting also discussed various pressing issues of
the Central Govt. employees and decided to take the important issues
in the charter of demand and organize trade union action in pursuance
thereon. The charter of demands adopted after discussion and the
phased programme of action decided upon is annexed to this circular
letter. The CHQ Sectt. will circulate a brief explanatory Note on
each demand to indicate the issues covered.
iii. The meeting also discussed over the confusion created by the DOPT
order on the composition of the JCM whereby almost all the employees
in most of the Departments would be out of the ambit of the JCM. The
meeting after detailed discussions on the pros and cons of the issue
adopted a resolution to demand:
That the Councils of the JCM at all levels should have the cadres and
categories of employees who were participants in the Negotiating body
at its inception through the Joint Intent irrespective of the change
of classification and pay scales or pay bands brought about later. It
was also decided that it should be brought to the notice of the
Government that no unilateral decision in the matter by the DOPT can
be taken as it would amount to violation of an agreement reached
between the employees and the Government.
v. The meeting also adopted a resolution to the effect that the
various entitlement like LTC facilities and air travel concession to
NE regions, Daily allowance, entitled for the Governmental
Accommodation etc. must be passed on Pay in the Pay Band plus the
Grade Pay of an employee and not on any other criterion like Grade Pay
or classification of Posts etc.
vi. The meeting noted with dissatisfaction that the recognition of
hospital under the CGHS for inpatient treatment of late has become a
nagging problem with the Health Ministry changing the procedure every
now and then and put the beneficiaries to extreme hardship in many
cities. The Government's approach in the matter has, the meeting
noted, only helped the Private entrepreneurs in the Health industry to
amass wealth and the recognition on the basis of the lowest tender had
been at a perilous cost of the CGHS beneficiaries. The meeting
decided to place before the Government the following suggestion for
the recognition of hospitals in each city.
a. Identify the reputed hospitals in each city by a committee with the
members of beneficiaries in each town/city covered by the CGHS Scheme
b. The Health Ministry must negotiate with these hospitals the rate at
which they will provide the treatment to the Government officials
taking into accounts various facilities extended to these institutions
by the Govt.
c. If the reputed hospitals are run by charitable trusts enjoying the
tax benefits, they should be asked to treat the CGEs on normal market
rate as reduced by atleast 30%.
vii. To raise before the Government the anomaly that has arisen
especially in the Postal Department on the introduction of MACP in
replacement of the time bound promotion scheme and seek amendment to
the existing clarification whereby the three proimotion scheme would
not be less beneficial than the existing scheme of time bound
promotion in any department.
viii. To bring to the notice of the Government the injustice meted out
to the cadres of LDC and UDCs by the 6th CPC whereby they become
entitled to even lesser pay than the erstwhile Group D employees.
While the Notice Servers in the Incometax Department and the Postmen
in Postal Department are given higher Pay and Grade Pay the LDCs are
assigned with lesser Grade Pay even though the minimum educational
qualification for recruitment in their case has been stipulated to be
10+2 whereas those are assigned with higher grade Pay has to have only
Matriculation for the initial recruitment. It was decided that the
Government must be asked to upgrade all existing Lower Division and
Upper Division or equivalent cadres in all Government Department
either as Executive Assistants with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200 as
recommended by the 6th CPC or assign them with the Grade pay of
atleast Rs. 2800/- if such whole scale up-gradation in any department
is considered infeasible.
ix. To demand the setting up of anomaly committees in all
Departments/Ministries and immediate convening of the Departmental
Councils as per the directive of the Department of Personnel and
Training. If for any reason the Anomaly committees are unable to be
set up in any department/Ministry, the concerned Ministry/Department
should be asked to set up the Anomaly committees with the nominated
members of the Standing Committee of the National Council as has been
done in the case of many Ministries to resolve the anomalies arising
from the 5th CPC recommendations.
Agenda Item No.3. National Anomaly Committee issues.
Com. S.K. Vyas, President explained in detail the deliberation at the
National Anomaly Committee meeting and the sub committee meeting in
which the MACP items were separately discussed. The clarification
sought by various members on these issues were provided. It was
decided that in the case of MACP some more issues must be raised by
the Confederation before the next anomaly committee meeting as was
pointed out by Com. K.V. Sridharan, General Secretary, All India
Postal Employees Union, Class III and many others. The meeting asked
the Secretary General to finalize the issue in discussion with the
comrades of NFPE.
Agenda Item No.4. Issues raised before the National Council JCM.
The Secretary General was asked to place on the website the issues
already taken up by the Staff Side with the Government in brief and
seek further items from all affiliates and COCs. This was agreed to.
Agenda Item No.7 Organisational review:
The meeting decided that:
(i)the CHQ Sectt. should meet on 24th Feb. 2010 along with the
Secretaries of all State Committees with a view that concrete steps
are taken to ensure that the State Committees are constituted with the
representatives of the Districts; the new office bearers are elected
if the two year term has been expired and to ensure that the
communication between the State Committees and the CHQ on the one hand
and the State Committees and the District Committees on the other is
properly established and the State Committees are helped to function
as vehicles for implementation of the programmes chalked out by the
Confederation in future.
(ii)The National Women Convention will be held at Kolkata on 7th and
8th February, 2010 and the Affiliates and State Committees will be
entitled to depute the following number of delegates to participate in
the said convention.
a. All India Audit and Accounts Association. 15
b. Income tax Employees Federation 20
c. National Federation of Postal Employees 30
(f) Federation of Atomic Energy Employees 10
(g) All India Civil Accounts Employees Assn. 10
(h) Confederation of Puduchery State Employees 05
(i) ISRO Employees Association 03
(j) Ground Water Board 02
(k) All other affiliates 02 each
(l) All State Committees will nominate two delegates (selected from
their specific affiliates – i.e. Other than the All India
organizations which are affiliated with the Confederation at the
National Level)
The affiliated will report to the CHQ the names of the delegates who
will be attending the convention by 10th January, 2011 latest. The
affiliated will take care that they do no nominate any lady comrade
from the State of West Bengal as the State Committee of West Bengal
who has taken the responsibility of making arrangements for the
convention would be nominating large number of lady comrades from that
state to participate.
(iii)The meeting also discussed the remittances of the subscription
due to the CHQ by the affiliates and the State Committee. The
representatives of the affiliates and the State Committee who
participated in the discussions on the subject agreed to clear the
dues by 31st March, 2011 latest. The Secretary General was asked to
intimate the dues to each affiliate separately by letters.
(iv) The house on the basis of the discussion earlier held decided
that the Confederation should ensure participation of sizeable number
of Central Government employees in the ensuing programme of "March to
Parliament" on 23rd February, 2010 for which the call has been given
by the Central Trade Unions. The CHQ sectt. was urged that a campaign
programme is chalked out by which a member of the Sectt. attends the
State Conventions/meetings convened for this purpose and the Delhi
State Committee and the neighbouring State Committees are specially
mobilized for this purpose.
Agenda Item No. 8.
Com. President permitted only a few comrades to raise certain
important issues under the agenda for paucity of time. The Secretary
General, All India Canteen Employees Association raised the issue of
the order of the Government in not filling up the vacancies in the
Canteen as a permanent measure. Many comrades raised the issue of non
representation of many affiliates in the meetings as also of the State
Committees. It was suggested that after the proposed meeting of the
State Committees on 24th Feb. 2010, the Sectt. must convene a meeting
of the Chief Executives of all affiliates separately to revamp the
organizational functioning of the Confederation.
Com. President in his concluding remarks appreciated the lively
discussion in the meeting and thanked the Mumbai State Committee for
the excellent arrangements made by them for the conduct of the
meeting, on behalf of the CHQ Sectt as also on behalf of the
affiliates and State Committees. The meeting was concluded at 9.00
PM.
With greetings,
Yours fraternally,
Sd/-
K.K.N. Kutty
Secretary General.
Charter of demands:
1. Stop price rise; strengthen the PDS.
2. Stop downsizing, outsourcing, contractorisation, corporatorisation
and privatization of Governmental functions
3. Fill up all vacant posts and create posts on functional requirements
4. Revise wages of CGEs with effect from 1.1.2011 and every five years
thereafter.
5. Scrap the New Pension Scheme and extend the statutory defined
benefited pension to all Central Govt. employees irrespective of the
date of recruitment.
6. Regularize the GDS, daily rated workers, contingent and casual
workers by brining about a definite scheme of regularization.
7. Remove restriction imposed on compassionate appointment ( end the
discrimination on compassionate appointment between the Railway
workers and other CGEs)
8. Stop the move to introduce the productivity linked wage system;
Performance related pay; introduce PLB to in all Departments; remove
the ceiling of emoluments for bonus computation.
9. Settle all items of anomalies (including the MACP related
anomalies) raised in the National and Departmental Anomaly committees
within a fixed time frame of two months; set up the anomaly committees
in those Departments where it has not been set up till date with the
Standing Committee members of the National Council; convene the
meeting of the Departmental Council in all Ministries/Department once
in three month as envisaged in the JCM Scheme
10. Make the right to strike a legal right and stop curtailment of T.U. rights
11. Implement all arbitration awards
12. Raise the interest rate for GPF. Revise the OTA and Night duty
allowance and stitching and clothing rates of uniforms
13. Merge DA with Pay for all purposes including pension as and when
the DA rates cross the 50% mark.
14. Vacate all Trade Union victimizations.

Programme of Action:
1. Submission of memorandum on the charter of demands with brief note
to explain each item in the charter.
2. Two months long campaign to educate and mobilize the members by
organizing (a) State level conventions (b) district level conventions
(c) Department level conventions (d) gate meetings in front of all
offices
3. Day long Dharna at a specified Central Location at the State and
District Capitals and other important places
4. To organize a March to the office of the Chairman of the State
Welfare Co-ordination Committees and submit a memorandum for onward
transmission to the Cabinet Secretary.
5. To organize a March to Parliament by Central Government employees at Delhi
6. To culminate in a one day strike

(The CHQ in the next communication will indicate the date for each of
the programme of action taking into account all factors)

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Circular 31

Dear Comrades

Please find Circular 31 posted below.

With greetings

M. S. Raja
Secretary General
ALL INDIA AUDIT & ACCOUNTS
ASSOCIATION
CSV WARRIER BHAWAN
15/1089-90, VASUNDHARA, VASUNDHARA (P.O.), Dt. GHAZIABAD
(U.P), PIN-201012
Ph:
0120-2881727/4101593/ 0 – 98681 45667
E-mail:
auditflag@gmail.com
Website:
www.auditflag.blogspot.com

Reference: AIA/Circular-31/2010
Dated: 7th December 2010

To
Unit Secretaries,
Members & Spl. Invitees – NE &
Members of Women's Committee


Dear Comrades,

The Qualification Pay for Auditors/Accounts has not been revised even
after passage of more than two years on implementation of SCPC report.
We had vide our letter dated AIA/B-1/31/2010 had requested CAG of
India to revise the qualification pay at par with the four advance
increments that was in vogue upto 3rd CPC, in tune with the upholding
of the CAT Chennai judgement on granting of four advance increments to
Auditors by the HC of Madras.

The Supreme Court of India in its judgement of 1st September 2010
rejected the appeal of the government of India against the Madras HC
judgement. The judgement of CAT as well as HC Madras is a judgement
with universal applicability and hence it has to be implemented in
respect of all in the IA&AD. But what has been done by the Department
is to implement it in respect of those who have gone to the CAT.

We have been demanding for quite long the re-introduction of the
scheme of four advance increments on passing of departmental
confirmatory examination for Auditors/Accountants. We re-iterated our
demand for re-introduction of the scheme of four advance increments in
place of qualification pay (our letter AIA/B-1/72/2010 dt 29th
November 2010) in the light of the Supreme Court upholding the
judgements of CAT & High Court, Madras.

All the units may therefore observe 22nd December 2010 as 'Replace
Qualification Pay with Four Advance Increments (on passing of
departmental examination) Day' by holding lunch hour demonstration and
adopting the enclosed resolution and submitting the same to CAG of
India through proper channel.

Further, we may go for signature campaign amongst the mass of
employees demanding implementation of Madras HC judgement on four
advance increments on passing of departmental confirmatory examination
universally in IA&AD. Signature Campaign Week may be observed from 3rd
January to 7th January 2011. Material for signature campaign would be
circulated separately.

With regards
Yours fraternally

(M.S.Raja)
Secretary General


RESOLUTION

This mass meeting of members of …………….Association, ……………….held on
22nd Decemebr 2010 take note that the Supreme Court of India rejected
the appeal by the government of India on the judgement of the High
Court of Madras in Writ Petition 13258/2003. The High Court of Madras
had upheld the order passed by the CAT Madras Bench in OA 229/2002.

These judgements of CAT as well as HC of Madras upheld t that the
Auditors of IA&AD are entitled for four advance increments as granted
to Accounts Assistants of Railway Accounts subsequent to a judgement
of Supreme Court.

Since the implementation of 3rd CPC recommendations in 1973, the
audit and accounts employees have been demanding the restoration of
the scheme of four advance increments to auditors & accountants on
passing of departmental confirmatory examination.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court upholding the decision given
by the HC of Madras upholds the merit of our demand.

This meeting therefore demand that the qualification pay that has not
been revised after the SCPC report implementation may be revised and
replaced with the scheme of four advance increments with effect from
1st January 2006.

This meeting of members of ………………….Association, …………..urges upon the
Comptroller & Auditor General of India to urgently intervene and grant
four advance increments to all auditors and accountants on passing of
departmental confirmatory examination with effect from 1.1.2006.

This meeting further request that the decision given by the HC of
Madras upheld by Supreme Court of India may be made applicable to all
eligible personnel in IA&AD.

Resolve to submit a copy of this resolution to Hon'ble CAG of India
through proper channel.

Further resolve to send a copy of this resolution to Secretary
General, All India Audit & Accounts Association, CSV Warrier Bhawan,
15/1089-90, Vasundhara, Dt. Ghaziabad (U.P.), PIN -201012.

( …………………….)
President

Monday, December 6, 2010

Circular 30-2010

Dear Comrades

Circular 30-2010 is posted below.

with greetings

M. S. Raja
Secretary General
ALL INDIA AUDIT & ACCOUNTS ASSOCIATION
CSV WARRIER BHAWAN
15/1089-90, VASUNDHARA, VASUNDHARA (P.O.), Dt. GHAZIABAD (U.P), PIN-201012
Ph: 0120-2881727/4101593/ 0 – 98681 45667
E-mail: auditflag@gmail.com
Website: www.auditflag.blogspot.com

Reference: AIA/Circular-30/2010
Dated: 29th November 2010

To
Unit Secretaries,
Members & Spl. Invitees – NE &
Members of Women's Committee


Dear Comrades,

ONCE AGAIN CAG'S REPORT BAGS LIME LIGHT

After two decades, the audit report of CAG and the CAG has become the
talk of the town and darling of media. Such an interest in the audit
report of CAG was evoked in late 1980s on the purchase of Bofors gun.
The amount involved or the loss to the exchequer then was a paltry one
(Rs 64 crores) compared to the amount (Rs 1.76 lakh crores) now
estimated to have been lost by the government on account of 2G
spectrum allocation.

In 1999 also, there was a furore – after the audit report on purchase
of coffins for carrying the martyrs of the Kargil war.

In 1989 and 1999, once the report was brought to the public domain,
there was a orchestrated, virulent attack on the CAG – attributing
biases and malice. In 1999, the then defence minister – champion of
CAG's report in 1989 – wrote a book condemning CAG in a most
reprehensible language.

The attack on the institution of CAG and its independent functioning
is nothing new. In 1990s, we could see similar attacks on the work of
CAG (i.e. IA&AD) by Chief Ministers of Kerala and Bihar, attributing
motives behind the reports.

It is akin to the statement made by a former President of the 'world
police' who termed non-alignment movement as an alignment/grouping
against his country!

Nobody like CAG's audit report, but everybody enjoys it.

But there is a difference this time – no political party has ventured
to attack the audit report on 2G spectrum allocation.

TIME TO GO TO THE PEOPLE
FOR CAG, INDEPENDENT OF EXECUTIVE

It was long back in 1989 that we organised a convention on the need
for an independent CAG and financial independence to CAG of India.
(Today, the constitutional safeguard is only to the extant of
discharging its functions – which also is getting crippled on account
of financial strings applied by the executive).

The time is ripe for reviving the issue as it is hot and lively and
can get wide support of intelligentsia and political parties across
the spectrum. Ofcourse, the issue will have to be fine tuned to
today's' and tomorrows requirements – at the same time taking enough
precautions of it not being misused.

The functional as well as financial independence is the key to
effective discharge of duties by CAG as envisioned by the Constitution
of India. With more than 35% vacancies and with a man power whose
average age is 50 what can be expected of a constitutional authority?
With hardly 2% audit, the department could bring out this kind of
reports, with an effective man power what benefit would not accrue to
the nation with accounts being effectively checked and managed?

The fact that there is an element of internal sabotage in undermining
the scope of the role of CAG can also not be overlooked.

The national Executive would meet to discuss the details of holding
National convention. A work paper would be finalised by the CHQ and
would be circulated. All units may also try to have regional
convention after receipt of work paper.

BUT…

On allegations of Common Wealth Game – related scams, the CAG has
been entrusted with detailed audit – personnel from across the country
have been drawn for the work.

Simultaneously, government has appointed a committee, also on CWG
scams, headed by a former CAG, Shri VK Shunglu. Is it to scuttle or
influence the audit done by the department? The track record of the
head of the committee is not giving much scope. This is the second
time Shri Shunglu is selected by the Government (in the last five
years) to head an enquiry committee and the report of the earlier
enquiry is yet not known to anybody.

With regards


Yours fraternally

(M.S.Raja)
Secretary General

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Circular 30-2010

Dear Comrades

Please find Circular 30-2010 posted below.

With warm regards,

M. S. Raja
Secretary General

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Circular 29-2010

Dear Comrades

Please find Circular 29-2010 and judgement of CAT Ernakulam posted below.

Yours fraternally

(M. S. Raja)
Secretary General

ALL INDIA AUDIT & ACCOUNTS ASSOCIATION
CSV WARRIER BHAWAN
15/1089-90, VASUNDHARA, VASUNDHARA (P.O.), Dt. GHAZIABAD (U.P), PIN-201012
Ph: 0120-2881727/4101593/ 0 – 98681 45667
E-mail: auditflag@gmail.com
Website: www.auditflag.blogspot.com

Reference: AIA/Circular-29/2010
Dated: 3rd November 2010

To
Unit Secretaries,
Members & Spl. Invitees – NE &
Members of Women's Committee


Dear Comrades,
CAT ERNAKULAM DELIVERS JUDGEMENT RE-INSTATING COM MANUEL;
DEPARMENT GOES ON APPEAL TO HC

CHQ had informed all through sms about the Ernakulam CAT, quashing
the chargesheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964 against Com KA
Manuel, former General Secretary of Audit Category II Association,
Kerala and ordering forthwith re-instatement with back wages. Copy of
the judgement is attached.

The CAT has said what we have been telling all along – that these
departmental courts are akin to trial in kangaroo courts. But what can
be done when the chain itself get mad? The only option before those
suffering under the vicious misuse of administrative power is to
challenge it organisationally while trudging the path of judiciary
with utmost care.

As expected, the department has taken interim stay from the CAT to go
for appeal in the Kerala High Court.

Those who speak of rule of law do not want to make it applicable to
them. They will fight in the higher courts with tax payer's money. If
the Accountants General who caused dismissal through fake trials wants
to challenge it, the department should ask them to spend from their
pockets.

This filing appeals in the higher courts with tax payers' money is
most immoral and illegal and against any audit concept.

150 YEARS OF IA&AD

Many units have reported that the local administration has intimated
them in writing about the functions to be organised on 16th November
2010 to commemorate the completion of 150 years of Indian Audit &
Accounts Department.

The CHQ has not got any formal intimation from the CAG's office on
any of such programmes. The units may decide locally, depending on the
conditions prevailing there, on the participation in such
celebrations.

We are indeed proud of the department and its achievements with in
the limited operational freedom granted.
We are also happy to know that the present CAG has taken up some of
the longstanding demands raised by this Association regarding
expanding the scope of Audit to new areas.

There is no doubt, the Association would be in the forefront in
defending the department. But we would like remind on this occasion
that it is the bounden duty of those who read out rule book/riot act
to the leaders and activists of the Association that 'Caesar's wife
should be above suspicion'. Without compromising on the principled
stand of the Association we would and should co-operate with the
functions to commemorate the 150 years of Indian Audit & Accounts
Department.

A CRITICAL VIEW

The proposed celebration is based on the colonial legacy. The Indian
Audit & Accounts Department's functions are regulated, as on today, by
the DPC Act, 1971 ie as far as the independent India is concerned, a
statute was enacted only 1971. Is it proper to celebrate 150 years?

So far as the attitude of the Gr A is concerned, it is still fully in
the colonial mindset, but for cosmetic talk of the constitution.

Some comrades were proposing that we should ask a special treat for
the employees during the 150th year.

Remember: In 1960, the department completed 100 year – centenary.
Then the Association was de-recognised, the Secretary General was
under suspension, hundreds of leaders and activists of the Association
through out the country were dismissed, suspended and hounded after
the 1960 strike.
In 2010, our comrades stand dismissed, suspended, chargesheeted, no
permission to hold meetings, many of the Accountants General do not
even meet and discuss the problems and chargesheet is given for
holding lunch hour meetings.

Let us not have any illusions – we can achieve through struggles
only, for that let us unite on and all. Every struggle would
definitely bring results, the unity and struggle has to be sustained
and furthered. There is no shortcut to unity and struggles.

With regards


Yours fraternally

(M.S.Raja)
Secretary General


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH

O.A.No.157/2010

Wednesday this the 20th day of October, 2010

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN, JUDICIAL MEMER
HON'BLE MR.K.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Manuel K.A ,TC 27/2049,
CRRA 16, Chirakulam Road,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
(Under orders of dismissal from the post of Section Officer, Office of
the Principal
Accountant General(Audit), Audit Bhavan, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.
..Applicant

By Advocate:Mr.M.K.Damodaran,Sr.
Mr.P.K.Vijayamohan

vs.

1. The Union of India, represented by
The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.

2. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India,
10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.

3. The Deputy Comptroller & Auditor General of India,
(Appellate Authority),10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi.

4. The Principal Accountant General(Audit),
Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.

By Advocate: Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC(R1)
Mr.O.V.Radhakrishnan, Sr. with
Mr.V.V.Asokan(R2-4)

The Application having been heard on 24.09.2010, the Tribunal on
20.10.2010 delivered the following:-

ORDER

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 5th March,2009 and the
Appellate Order dated 24.11.2009 the applicant has filed this Original
Application praying that the above orders may be quashed and the
applicant may be reinstated in service with all the Consequential
benefits.
2. The backdrop of the case is as follows. While the applicant was
working as Section Officer, redesignated as Assistant Audit Officer,
he was served with a memo dated 21.03.2007 directing the applicant to
file his explanation within seven days of the receipt of the Memo why
he has physically manhandled Sri VK Praveen, a Group D staff of A&E
Office on 30.11.2006 at 6.15 P.M. For the above memo, the applicant
had filed his representation on 27th March,2007. Subsequently
another memo dated 16.4.2007 has been issued to the applicant alleging
that the applicant committed serious misconduct in violation of the
provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) and Rule 7 of the
CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 by participating in the agitation in the
office premises from 19th December 2006 to 22nd December,2006 in
connection with the suspension of one S.V.Santhoshkumar,
Sr.Accountant of AG(A&E) Office, Main Office, Thiruvananathapuram. The
applicant also filed his stand, in the reply dated 7.5.2007 on denying
the allegations levelled against him. Subsequent to the above two
memos, a charge memo dated 30.7.2007 has been served on the applicant
proposing an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules,1965 along with the
Statement of Imputations/Allegations as Annexure I in which it is
alleged that the applicant while functioning as Section Officer in the
Office of the Principal Accountant General(Audit), Kerala,
Thiruvananthapuram abused, threatened and physically assaulted Shri VK
Praveen, a Group D staff of Office of the Accountant General
(A&E),Kerala on 30th November, 2006 at 6.15 P.M. and thereby indulged
in indiscipline and committed misconduct in a manner unbecoming of a
Government servant thereby violated clause(iii) of sub rule (1) of
Rule 3 of CCS(Conduct) Rules,1964. Four other detailed charges
were also there. The above charge memo contains detailed Statement of
Imputations of misconduct in respect of the Articles of Charges
framed against the applicant. The applicant filed an explanation to
the above Articles of Charges on 29.9.2008 denying all the charges
levelled against him. However, an enquiry has been ordered and on
appointing an Enquiry Officer, an enquiry has been conducted and a
report dated 29.9.2008 has been furnished and on the basis of the
findings entered into by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary
Authority passed a penalty of dismissal from service as per the order
dated 5th March, 2009, dismissing the applicant from service. Against
the said order of dismissal, the applicant filed an appeal before the
Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority on considering the appeal
confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as per the
Appellate Order dated 23rd October, 2009. Aggrieved by the above
orders of punishment and the Appellate Order, the applicant filed
the present Original Application.

3. The Original Application has been admitted by this Tribunal and
notice has been ordered to the respondents. In pursuance of the notice
received from this Tribunal, a reply statement has been filed on 13th
May, 2010, justifying the orders impugned. Further along with the
reply statement, the respondents have filed Annexures R1(a) to R1(d) ,
a copy of the show cause dated 21.2.2002 issued to the applicant, a
copy of the memo dated 24.6.2002, a copy of the memo dated 18.9.2008
and a copy of the memo dated 31.10.2008. The definite stand taken in
the reply statement is that as per the report of the Inquiring
Authority the applicant ad abused, threatened and physically assaulted
Sri V.K.Praveen, a Group D staff of the A&E Office on 30.11.2006 in
connection with the agitational activities undertaken by the
Associations demanding revocation of suspension order issued against
one Santhoshkumar, a Senior Accountant and the charges framed
against the applicant have been proved and on the basis of the
findings entered into in the enquiry report, the penalty order has
been passed. Further it is stated in the reply statement that it is
not mandatory under the provisions of the CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965 to
hold any preliminary enquiry before initiating disciplinary
proceedings. In spite of that, a preliminary enquiry was also
conducted during May to June,2007 and thereafter the charge memo
dated 30.07.2007 has been issued against the applicant. Further it is
stated in the reply statement that the enquiry has been held strictly
in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules,
1965 and it is not necessary to examine the complainant at the
time of enquiry and if the preliminary enquiry conducted would show
that a prima facie case has been proved, the enquiry can be conducted.
It is further stated in the reply statement that the provisions
of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India regarding giving
an opportunity to the delinquent officer has been substantially
complied with and the evidence adduced during the enquiry in support
of the charges levelled against the applicant is sufficient to hold
him guilty of the charges. The applicant was furnished with a copy of
the enquiry report and even if any mistake or omission has been
occurred in producing and marking the documents which the authority
wants to rely on, cannot be considered as a ground to reject the
enquiry report, as such enquiry has not been vitiated. Further it is
stated that regarding the non-examination of the complainant has been
never raised by the applicant during the enquiry and the entire
disciplinary proceedings were conducted in compliance with the
provisions of Rules 14 and 15 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules,1965 and there
was no violation of the provisions of these Rules. Further it is
stated in para-30 of the reply statement that there is evidence to
show that the applicant engaged in dharna/Demonstration and in
participating such dharna or Demonstration, the applicant had
committed a misconduct alleged against the applicant.

4. We have heard the learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the applicant
Shri M.K.Damodaran. Shri Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC(R1) and Shri
O.V.Radhakrishnan learned Sr.Counsel along with Shri V.V.Asokan for
the respondents 2 to 4.We have also perused the documents produced in
the O.A. Firstly, the counsel submits that the applicant entered in
the service as Lower Division Clerk on 1.5.1987 and was promoted as
Section Officer redesignated as Asstt.Audit Officer on 11.1.2005 and
he has got a total period of more than 22 years of unblemished service
under the Govt. of India. While the applicant was working as Section
Officer , the Govt. of India introduced a modified pension scheme
called One Rank One Pension and for implementation of that scheme
the then Accountant General(A &E), Kerala was planning to entrust the
work of the office to outside agencies. To take a protest against the
proposal to outsource the work of One Rank One Pension, the
Employees Association Service Organizations discussed the matter and
decided to resort a peaceful means of protest and on the basis of
such protest a peaceful agitation was organized and in connection with
that agitation one Santhosh Kumar, a Senior Accountant has been
suspended, which also caused for an agitation and an agitation at the
organizational level and as a matter of fact, the proposal to
outsource the work of One Rank One Pension Scheme has been dropped
and thereafter the Accountant General was keeping animosity against
the applicant as he being one of the members of the Association
of the employees who caused the agitation against the proposal of the
Accountant General. With the said animosity the Accountant General
was keeping towards the applicant and such other employees foisted
certain cases against them and the personal Group D peon of the
Accountant General, Praveen was made a tool to grind the axe against
the applicant and thereby created a complaint as if received from the
said Praveen and issued the memos dated 21.3.2007, a copy of which was
produced and
marked as Annexure A1, a memo dated 16.4.2007 and the charge memo
dated 30.7.2007. To the above memos the applicant had given his
replies. But the respondents proceeded with an
enquiry on the basis of the charge memo dated 30.7.2007. The alleged
enquiry has been conducted without following the procedure
prescribed under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control & Appeal)Rules,1965(hereinafter be referred
to as the CCS(CC&A Rules).Further the learned counsel submits that in
pursuance to the proposal for entrusting the work of modified pension
scheme, namely, One Rank One Pension to the outside agency, has been
objected to by the Employees Associations and Service Organizations
of the Office protesting the proposal to outsource the work as well as
the suspension of one employee, there was a Dharna during the
period from 19th December,2006 to 22nd December,2006 and 26th
December,2006. The suspension ordered was withdrawn and on the protest
shown by the employees Association, the proposal to outsource the
Scheme was also withdrawn which shows that the protest was justifiable
and peaceful and further there was an incident in which the
Accountant General (Audit Accounts & Entitlement),Kerala misbehaving
with the women employees which was given rise to them filing complaint
before the in-house committee and to the Women's Commission and one of
the such women employees become the wife of the applicant, one
Elsamma. Because of all these things, the applicant was victimized by
issuing such memos and finally the charge memo dated 27.4.2007, a copy
of which is produced and marked in the O.A. as Annexure A3.The learned
counsel further submits that the alleged enquiry conducted by the
Inquiring Authority is only a camouflage and the procedure prescribed
under Rule 14 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules has not been followed. There is
no evidence against the applicant to prove the charge against him. No
documents were proved legally and all the documents marked only
through the Enquiry Officer and no witness has been examined to prove
any of the documents relied on by the Inquiring Authority to prove
the charges framed against the applicant and there was no legally
acceptable evidence whereas the Inquiring Authority has simply stated
that the charges have been proved by examining 3 witnesses and these
witnesses are not giving any evidence to prove the charges framed
against the applicant. If so, the evidence now accepted by the
Inquiring Authority to hold that the charge framed against the
applicant has been proved is without following the principles laid
down by the Apex Court reported in 1998(2) SCC 394 in Commissioner and
Secretary to the Govt. and Others vs. C.Shanmugam, 1999(8) SCC 582 in
Hardwari Lal vs. State of U.P.and Others, 2006(5) SCC 88 in M.V.
Bijlani vs. Union of India and Others and in 2009(2) JT 176 in Roop
Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors.


5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is
that the complainant Praveen has not been examined and the original of
the complaint has not been marked, only a copy of the complaint has
been produced before the Inquiring Authority. The alleged complaint
has been filed on 1.12.2006 whereas it has reached the Accountant
General only on 9.3.2007. The delay in taking into account of the
complaint itself is doubtful . The alleged incident was on 30.11.2006.
The complainant Praveen,the author of Annexure A2 complaint has been
never examined and even not cited as a witness in the charge sheet
or the list of witnesses submitted by the authorities for examination.
This would show that the respondents never intended to examine
the complainant Praveen and the source of the complaint itself was not
proved. Even as per the copy of the complaint it is alleged that the
applicant threatened and assaulted the complainant Praveen on
30.11.2006 whereas the complaint has been seen taken into
consideration by the Accountant General only on 9.3.2007. That delay
itself creates a doubt regarding the source of the complaint or the
alleged misconduct of assault committed by the applicant on
30.11.2006.Further the counsel submits that none of the 3 witnesses,
namely PWI to PW3, the Assistant Caretaker and the other two officials
did not say anything about the incident alleged to have been taken
place on 30.11.2006. Even in the evidence of PW3 it is the only case
that the complainant Praveen told him that the applicant assaulted
him on 30.11.2006. With regard to the evidence of other witnesses PWI
only states that he has given only a report to the Accountant General
regarding the incident alleged to have been taken place on 30.11.2006,
but that report is not even produced before the Inquiring Authority.
If so, the very source of the alleged complaint itself is doubtful. A
photocopy of the original has been produced by the Presenting Officer
and marked through him by the Inquiring Authority and marking of
this complaint itself is not in accordance with the provisions of the
Evidence Act pertaining to the marking of a document in a case.

6. The further contention of the learned counsel regarding the
evidence of the witnesses pertaining to the previous statements
alleged to have been recorded during the preliminary enquiry it is
also not recorded in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence
Act as the Inquiring Authority has not marked any of the preliminary
statements as proved through the witness when PW I-3 are examined by
the Inquiring Authority. When PW 1-3 are examined by the Inquiring
Authority, the Presenting Officer simply read the preliminary
statements alleged to have been given by the witnesses and asked the
witnesses whether they have given such statements or not. Though the
witnesses admitted that they have given such statements, that
preliminary statements were not marked or produced as part of the
deposition of any of the witnesses. If so, there is no proper
recording or marking of the preliminary statements alleged to have
been given by the witnesses during the preliminary enquiry or
investigation. Hence, according to the counsel for the applicant,
there is no evidence regarding the incident of 30.11.2006, as stated
in the charge memo or any preliminary statement of the witnesses
has been properly recorded.

7. The next contention of the Sr.Counsel Mr. M.K.Damodaran is that
as per the charge memo, the applicant committed the misconduct of
violation of Rules 3 and 7 of the CCS Conduct Rules by participating
in the agitation/Dharna during 19th December to 22nd December,
2006. Rule 7 of the Conduct Rules only prohibits to engage himself or
participate in any demonstration which is prejudicial to the interests
of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or
morality, or which involves contempt of Court, defamation or
incitement to an offence. Sub rule 2 of Rule 7 prohibits only any form
of strike or coercion or physical duress in connection with any matter
pertaining to his service or the service of any other Government
servant. The reply statement filed by the applicant would clearly
indicate that a peaceful agitation has been called by the employees
association and there was no duress or physical coercion so as to
attract any violation of the above rules. Every trade union is
permitted to have peaceful agitation or Dharna with notice to the
authorities. The learned counsel also relies on judgments of the Apex
Court reported in AIR1960 SC 633, AIR 1962 SC 1166 and AIR 1963 SC
822,to prove this aspect. The evidence now discussed by the Inquiring
Authority would not show that there was any physical duress or attempt
to cause disturbance of public tranquility at the premises of the
Office of the Accountant General because of the call of the agitation
made by the employees association.

8. The next contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the
finding of the Inquiring Authority that the applicant participated in
the Dharna or agitation called by the employees association in
connection with the suspension of one Santhosh Kumar, a Senior
Accountant from 19th to 22nd December,2006, is without any
evidence and it is only on surmises and speculation. The counsel
submits that even the reply statement and the explanation given by the
applicant would show that during the relevant days the applicant was
on outdoor duty and he has not participated in the Dharna, as alleged
in the charge. The conclusion of the Inquiring Authority that the
applicant participated in the Dharna/demonstration held from
19.12.2006 to 22.12.2006 is based on no evidence and the reliance
placed by the Inquiring Authority to come to such a conclusion is on
the ground that PW 2 & 3 were not cross-examined by the applicant
to prove his participation in the Dharna, at the same time there is
records to show that the applicant had submitted his TA bills claiming
ordinary T.A for his journey from Trivandrum to Kannur on 21.12.2006
and the T.A bills were also sanctioned by the authority. The
Inquiring Authority missed the case of the applicant that the
applicant was on transit to the District Police Office, Kannur on
22.12.2006 and he attended duties there. The Inquiry Officer also
missed the fact that as per the defence document B3 the tour diary of
the week ending 23.12.2006 signed by the applicant has been
countersigned by the supervising officer in the audit party and the
Attendance Register D3B would also prove that the applicant was not
present at Trivandrum or participated in the Dharna held on 19th to
22nd December,2006. Hence the finding entered into by the Inquiring
Authority is perverse and not based on any evidence at all.

9. Finally the learned counsel appearing for the applicant contends
that the Appellate Authority while considering the appeal filed by the
applicant has not properly appreciated the grounds urged in the Appeal
Memorandum and the Appellate Order does not contain any reasons for
dismissing the appeal. The applicant has urged more than 22 grounds in
the Appeal Memorandum and none of these grounds considered by the
Appellate Authority. A reading of the Appellate Order does not show
that the Appellate Authority considered the appeal as per Rule
27 of the CCS (CC&A)Rules by applying his mind and given answer
to the grounds urged in the Appeal Memorandum. The appellant has
specifically alleged that Annexure A2 complaint is a false one and
nobody proved the same as the complainant V.K.Praveen himself was not
examined at the time of the enquiry. Even the handwriting of the said
complainant Praveen is entirely different from that of produced in
Annexure A2 complaint. The copy of the complaint produced and marked
as Annexure A2 did not bear the initials of the Disciplinary Authority
or the complainant or even the superior officer who alleged to have
been received the same. Further in the Appeal Memorandum the applicant
had taken a definite contention that to prove the charges 3,4 and
5, no document has been produced and marking of even the documents
produced through the Presenting Officer is not in accordance with the
provisions of the Evidence Act or even the rules and procedure
prescribed under the CCS(CC&A) Rules. Further it is specifically
contended in the Appeal Memorandum that no evidence was produced to
prove the incident alleged to have been taken place on 30.11.2006 at
6.15 p.m. at the premises of the office of the Accountant General. It
is also urged in the Appeal Memorandum that Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A)
Rules has been violated by the Inquiring Authority while recording the
evidence against the applicant. None of these grounds were discussed
or even given any reason for rejecting the appeal filed by the
applicant on confirming the Penalty Order by the Disciplinary
Authority.

10. Shri O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the
respondents, has tried to meet the contention of the learning
Sr.Counsel appearing for the applicant, one by one. Learned
Sr.Counsel reiterating the stand taken in the reply statement
submitted that as per the charge memo dated 30.7.07 (Annexure A5) the
entire imputations and allegations levelled against the applicant have
been stated and the main charges namely the participation of the
applicant in the agitation programme held in the main premises of
both the Accountant General(A&E),Kerala and the Principal Accountant
General(Audit) on 19th December to 22nd December, 2006 in connection
with the suspension of one Santhosh Kumar, a Senior Accountant of
Accountant General (A&E) office has been specifically stated. Further
as per the charge memo it is alleged that the applicant while
functioning as Section Officer in the office of the Principal
Accountant General(Audit),Kerala, Trivandrum abused, threatened and
physically assaulted Sri V.K.Praveen, a Group D staff of office of the
Accountant General (A&E) on 30th November,2006 at 6.15 p.m. and
thereby committed the misconduct of violating clause (iii)of sub rule
1 of Rule 3 of CCS Conduct)Rules,1964 and further committed the
violation of Rule 7(1) of the same rules. All the 5 charges framed
against the applicant, according to the learned counsel for the
respondents have been enquired into by the Inquiring Authority and
found that all the 5 charges were proved. If so, the contention of the
learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the charge itself is
a victimization of the applicant is not tenable. The counsel further
submits that with regard to the contention that there is no evidence
to prove the charges levelled against the applicant is not correct as
the Inquiring Authority relied on the oral evidence of PW 1 to 3 and
also the documentary evidence Exhibits A1 to A7. None of the 3
witnesses examined before the Inquiring Authority has been properly
cross- examined to destroy the evidence given by these witnesses or to
cause any doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence given by these
witnesses. PW 1 to 3 had specific cases before the Inquiring authority
that they have given previous statements regarding the incident which
were recorded at the time of preliminary enquiry and further that
statements of the witnesses were read over to them and they have
admitted the fact that they have given such statements at the time of
the preliminary enquiry. These statements of the witnesses could
not have been discredited as these witnesses were not cross-examined
or discredited by effective cross-examination by the applicant. Hence
the Inquiring Authority is justified in accepting the previous
statements of the witnesses as evidence on record. With regard to the
contention of the cross- examination of the complainant Sri
Praveen,learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the
evidence of PW 2 and 3 would clearly indicate that the applicant was
present on the relevant day and Sri Praveen has been assaulted by the
applicant at the premises of the Accountant General and the incident
also has been spoken to by PW 3 who could be treated as an eye witness
to the
incident. If so, the non-examination of the complainant Praveen is not
the reason to reject the evidence of the witnesses regarding the
incident of assault. The learned counsel also relies on the judgments
of the Apex Court reported in 2006(2) SCC 584, 2007(9) SCC 86 and AIR
1977 SC 1512 to prove that it is not necessary to examine the
complainant to prove an incident, if the incident is proved otherwise.
The learned counsel further submits that the contention that the
presence of the applicant on the day of the incident and his
participation in the dharna or agitation from 19th December to 22nd
December,2006 are not proved, is not tenable. The Inquiring Authority
has categorically found in the enquiry report that the applicant
deserted his office and duty and participated in the
demonstration from 19th December to 22nd December, 2006 held in the
office premises in connection with the suspension of Sri Santhosh
Kumar. A definite finding has been entered by the Inquiring Authority
that the applicant was present during the demonstration from 19th
to 22nd December,2006 on the basis of the evidence given by PW I who
had reported to the Sr.Accountant General and further the Inquiring
Authority found that as per the documents produced from the defence
side itself would show that the applicant was physically present in
Trivandrum in order to carry out his work at Police Headquarters and
the evidence of PW 3 would also show that the complaint Sri Praveen
had told him that the applicant was present on 30.11.2006 at 6.15 p.m.
and assaulted him and this evidence also has been considered by the
Inquiring Authority. With regard to the marking of the documents
produced by the Presenting Officer, the counsel for the respondents
submits that as per the decisions reported in AIR 1969 SC 966 and AIR
1965 SC 311, the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act is not
applicable in the departmental enquiry with regard to the evidence or
marking of evidence or documents. Further the counsel submits
that even if any defect in the marking of the documents or conduct of
the enquiry as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court reported
in 1993 (4) SCC 727 and 2006(2) SCC 584, this Tribunal can only remand
the case for a de novo trial and this Tribunal is not expected to
quash the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The
learned counsel further submits that it is not necessary to give
reasons for the Appellate Authority at the time of confirming an
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is only proper for the
Appellate Authority to consider the conclusions arrived at by the
first authority and it is not mandatory to give the reasons to confirm
the order passed by the first authority. To substantiate the above
contention, the learned counsel for the respondents also relies on
2006(4)SCC 713 and 2008(3)SCC 469.

11. On an anxious consideration of the contentions raised by the
counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the documents
furnished, this Tribunal has to consider whether the impugned orders
are to be upheld or not. Before answering the main arguments of the
counsel appearing for the parties, the admitted background of the
cases are to be looked into. During the relevant period the Government
of India introduced a modified pension scheme called One Rank One
Pension and for the implementation of that scheme the then Accountant
General(Accounts & Entitlement), Kerala proposed to entrust the work
of the office to outside agencies. The said proposal was objected to
and protested by the employees associations and service organizations
and they discussed the matter in detail and on the basis of the
decision arrived at by the service organizations and associations
decided to resort a peaceful means of protest by way of peaceful
agitation. In connection with the above proposed agitation one
Santhosh Kumar, a Senior Accountant, has been suspended and on
suspension of that official an agitation on the organizational level
has been called on and in persuasion of the agitation designed to
protest against the suspension of Santhosh Kumar the alleged
incident of misconduct levelled against the applicant has been
occurred, if so, the first question to be considered is that whether
the agitation or Dharna conducted from 19th December to 22nd December,
2006 was a peaceful or legal strike as against the Conduct Rules which
prohibits any of the illegal strike or dharna in violation of Rule 3
or Rule 7 of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964, hereinafter be referred to
as the CCS (Conduct) Rules and further question to be considered is
that whether the applicant was present in the office premises of the
Accountant General and participated in the dharna or agitation and
whether on 30.11.2006 at 6.15 p.m, the applicant assaulted Shri
V.K.Praveen or not. Under the above circumstances the charge memos
dated 21.3.2007(Annexure A1), 16.4.2007(Annexure A3) and
30.7.2007(Annexure A5) have to be analysed. As per Annexure A1
memo it is alleged that on 30.11.2006 at 6.15 p.m. the applicant
hit with his leg on the abdomen of Shri Praveen and the applicant
threatened him with dire consequences once AG is transferred from the
place , while the latter was returning to the section after keeping
the bag of the Accountant General in the Staff Car. The action of the
applicant amounts to a misconduct coming under clause (iii) of Sub
Rule 1 of Rule 3 and Rule 7 of the CCS(Conduct)Rules, 1964. In
Annexure A3, it is further directed to explain within 10 days of the
receipt of the memo to show cause why disciplinary action under the
CCS (CC&A) Rules,1965 and administrative action as contemplated in FR
17-1and FR 17-A should not be taken against him. Apart from the
allegations contained in Annexures A1 and A3 , it is alleged in
Annexure A5 charge memo that the Principal Accountant General and
Disciplinary Authority proposed to hold an enquiry against the
applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules,1965 and directed the
applicant to submit his written statement within 10 days from the date
of receipt of the charge memo. Along with the memo dated 30.07.2007 5
separate Articles of Charges have been framed against the
applicant. On the basis of the above charge memo, the Statement of
Imputations of misconduct in respect of the Articles of Charges framed
against the applicant was also narrated. The Articles of above 5
charges reiterate rather combined allegations contained in Annexure A1
and Annexure A3 memos . For Annexure A1 and Annexure A3 memos the
applicant had filed his explanations denying the allegations
levelled against him as per the explanations offered by the applicant
dated 27th March,2007 and 7th May,2007 respectively. However an
enquiry has been ordered and the applicant on receipt of the notice
from the Inquiring Authority filed his written statement reiterating
his stand taken in the explanations furnished to the memos received by
him. To answer the first question whether there was any illegal
strike or any agitation as alleged in the charge memo from 19th
December to 22nd December, 2006 in connection with the suspension of
Santhosh Kumar, the Inquiring Authority found that as per Exhibit A6
there was an unauthorized dharna conducted without permission of
the authorities. Conducting a meeting/demonstration within the office
premises without the permission of the authorities is prohibited one
and there is evidence to show that the dharna conducted was illegal
one. But to substantiate this finding the Inquiring Authority relies
only on Exhibit A6, Memo No.C. Cell/Audit/Tr.48 dated 27.4.2007 and
this is not proved by adducing any admissible evidence. Exhibit A6 was
marked through the Presenting Officer and this document Exhibit A6
produced along with the charge memo has not been properly proved to
show that the so-called dharna or agitation was irregular, illegal or
without any permission. The written statement of the applicant in
this context has not been analyzed properly by the Inquiring Authority
or the Disciplinary Authority. The specific case set up by the
applicant in his written statement is that there was no agitation in
the office, as alleged and there was no illegal strike, coercion or
physical duress in connection with any matter pertaining to the
service of any Government servant. There was a call from the Audit and
Accounts Association of Kerala office, which is a unit of the All
India Audit and Accounts Association, recognized by the Government of
India under the CCS (RS) Rules and there was a call for peaceful
demonstration and dharna and the same was very peaceful. There was no
complaint against the demonstration and dharna from employees except
from some interested corners. In the light of the above stand by the
applicant it is the duty of the Inquiring Authority and the
Disciplinary Authority to prove that the strike or the dharna or
demonstration staged from 19th December to 22nd December,2006,
was illegal and without permission, whereas the agitation was a
peaceful one and within the rights of the trade unions resorting
collective bargain to stop the proposal for outsourcing the work of
One Rank One Pension scheme and the suspension followed by such
protest. The Inquiring Authority found that the applicant deserted his
duties and participated in unauthorized demonstration/dharna. On the
basis of the evidence of DW I who had stated that the dharna was in
connection with the suspension of Santhosh Kumar and the dharna was
an unauthorized mass dharna in which a large number of not less than
100 persons participated. Further it is concluded by the Inquiring
Authority that even if there is no evidence to show that there was a
call for strike of any association during December, 2006 it is clear
that dharna of 19th to 22nd December,2006 will tantamount to
striking work by the participants since such large number
abstaining from work would naturally result in slowing down work and
as per the Government of India Office Memorandum No.25/23/66-Estt(A)
dated 9th December,2006, actions which would fall under the definition
of strike would include stay-in, sit-down etc. The further finding of
the Inquiring Authority is that it is clear that the unauthorized
dharna/demonstration by such a large number or over such a long
period was a coercive strike to pressurize the administration of the
office to take certain steps such as revoking the suspension of Shri
Santhosh Kumar. Thus the applicant participated in an unauthorized
strike or dharna or demonstration and thereby violated clause (ii) of
Rule 7 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. On a careful reading of the
depositions given by PWs 1 to 3, and the documents proved through
the Presenting Officer would show that there was no evidence to hold
that the demonstration or dharna was illegal or any coercive steps
have been taken place. Whereas the evidence of DWs I to 3 and the
explanation given by the applicant would show that there was a
peaceful agitation/dharna in connection with the suspension of Sri
S.V.Santhosh Kumar and there is no evidence to show that the said
agitation was illegal or it could be called as a strike or cessation
of work in the office of the Accountant General. No witness has stated
that any office work has been paralyzed or affected by the agitation
spoken to by DWs 1 to 3. Even if such a violent demonstration or
strike occurred and the applicant participated therein, it should be
proved by legally acceptable evidence . Staging a dharna or an
agitation on the call made by the Service Associations of Employees
Organizations is not in violation of Rule 7 of the CCS(Conduct) Rules.
At the same time to have an association or to have a collective
bargaining on the organizational level is permissible and within the
fundamental right of the employees guaranteed as per Article 19 of the
Constitution of India as well as the Service Rules permitting the
Government employees to have a trade union or an organization to
protect their grievance or to show protest against any order or action
on the side of the employer and this is clear from the judgments of
the Apex Court reported in AIR 1962 SC 1166; Kameshwar Prasad &
others vs. State of Bihar and AIR 1963 SC 822; O.K.Ghosh and another
vs. E.X.Joseph. In the first case, the Apex Court considered Rule 4 of
the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules,1956 which prohibits any
form of demonstration and against resorting to strike.
The Apex Court on considering the issue raised therein held in
paragraph 13 of the judgment, as follows:-
" (13)The first question that falls to be considered is
whether the right to make a "demonstration" is covered by either or
both of the two freedoms guaranteed by Art.19(1)(a) and
19(1)(b). A "demonstration" is defined in the Concise Oxford
Dictionary as "an outward exhibition of feeling, as an exhibition of
opinion on political or other question especially a public
meeting or procession". In Webster it is defined as "a public
exhibition by a party sect or society .......... ..... as by a parade
or mass- meeting. Without going very much into the niceties of
language it might be broadly stated that a demonstration is a
visible manifestation of the feelings or sentiments of an individual
or a group. It is thus a communication of one's ideas to others to
whom it is intended to be conveyed. It is in effect therefore a form
of speech or of expression, because speech need not be vocal since
signs made by a dumb person would also be a form of speech.
It has however to be recognized that the argument before us is
confined to the rule prohibiting demonstration which is a form of
speech and expression or of a mere assembly and speeches therein and
not other forms of demonstration which do not fall within the content
of Art.19(1)(a) or 19 (1)(b). A demonstration might take the form of
an assembly and even then the intention is to convey to the person
or authority to whom the communication is intended the feelings of
the group which assembles. It necessarily follows that there are
forms of demonstration which would fall within the freedoms
guaranteed by Art.19(1)(a) & 19(1)(b). It is needless to add that from
the very nature of things a demonstration may take various forms; it
may be noisy and disorderly, for instance stone-throwing by a crowd
may be cited as an example of a violent and disorderly demonstration
and this would not obviously be within Art.19(1)(a) or (b). It can
equally be peaceful and orderly such as happens when the members of
the group merely wear some badge drawing attention to their
grievances."
So also the same question was considered by the Apex Court in
O.K.Ghosh's case, cited supra, wherein the Apex Court upheld the
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of
India can be claimed by the Government servants. In the above judgment
in paragraphs 10 and 11, the Apex Court held as follows:-

" (10)This argument raises the problem of
construction of cl.(4).Can it be said that the rule imposes a
reasonable restriction in the interests of public order ? There can
be no doubt that Government servants can be subjected to rules which
are intended to
maintain discipline amongst their ranks and to lead o an efficient
discharge of their duties. Discipline amongst Government employees
and their efficiency may in a sense, be said to be related to public
order. But in considering the scope of cl.(4), it has to be borne in
mind that the rule must be in the interests of public order
and must amount to a reasonable restriction. The words "public
order"occur even in cl.(2),which refers, inter alia, to security of
the State and public order. There can be no doubt that the said
words must have the same
meaning in both cls.(2) and (4). So far as cl.(2) is concerned,
security of the State having been expressly and specifically provided
for, public order cannot include the security of State, though in its
widest sense it may be capable of including the said concept.
Therefore, in cl.(2), public order is virtually synonymous with
public peace, safety and tranquility. The denotation of the said
words cannot be any wider in cl.(4). That is one consideration which
it is necessary to bear in mind. When cl.(4) refers to the
restriction imposed in the interests of public order, it is necessary
to enquire as to what is the effect of the words "in the interests
of". This clause again cannot be interpreted to mean that even if the
connection between the restriction and the public order is remote
and indirect the restriction can be said to be in the interests of
public order. A restriction can be said to be in the interests of
public order only if the connection between the restriction and the
public order is proximate and direct. Indirect or far-fetched or
unreal connection between the restriction and public order would
not fall within the purview of the expression "in the interests of
public order". This interpretation is strengthened by the other
requirement of cl.(4) that, by itself, the restriction ought to be
reasonable. It would be difficult to hold that a restriction which
does not directly relate to public order can be said to be reasonable
on the ground that its connection with public order is remote or
far-fetched. That is another consideration which is relevant.
Therefore, reading the two requirements of cl. (4), it follows that
the impugned restriction can be said to satisfy the test of cl.(4)
only if its connection with public order is shown to be rationally
proximate and direct. That is the view taken by this Court in
Superintendent,Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia AIR
1960 SC 633.In the words of Patanjali Sastri J.in Rex v. Basudev, 1949
FCR 657 at p 661:(AIR 1950 FC 67 at p.69)"the connection contemplated
between the restriction and public order must be real and proximate,
not far-fetched or problematical." It is in the light of this legal
position that the validity of the impugned rule must be
determined.

(11) It is not disputed that the fundamental rights guaranteed
by Art.19 can be claimed by Government servants. Art.33 which confers
power on the Parliament to modify the rights in their application
to the Armed Forces, clearly brings out the fact that all citizens,
including Government servants, are entitled to claim the right
guaranteed by Art.19. Thus, the validity of the impugned rule has to
be judged on the basis that the respondent and his co-employees are
entitled to form associations or unions. It is clear that R.4-B
imposes a restriction on this right. It virtually compels a
Government servant to withdraw his membership of the Service
Association of Government servants as soon as recognition accorded to
the said association is withdrawn or if, after the association is
formed, no recognition is accorded to it within six months. In other
words, the right to form an association is conditioned by the
existence of the recognition of the said association by the
Government. If the association obtains the recognition and continues
to enjoy it, Government servants can become members of the
said association; if the association does not secure recognition
from the Government, or recognition granted to it is withdrawn,
Government servants must cease to be the members of the said
association. That is the plain effect of the impugned rule. Can this
restriction be said to be in the interests of public order and can it
be said to be a reasonable restriction? In our opinion, the only
answer to these questions would be in the negative. It is difficult
to see any direct or proximate or reasonable connection between the
recognition by the Government of the association and the discipline
amongst, and the efficiency of the members of the said
association. Similarly, it is difficult to see any connection between
recognition and public order.

12. The next point we have to consider that the finding entered into
by the Disciplinary Authority that the applicant participated in the
demonstration alleged to have been conducted from the 19th to 22nd
December,2006 and the applicant threatened and assaulted Shri
V.K.Praveen, on 30.11.2006 at 6.15 p.m. at the office premises of the
Accountant General, are supported by any acceptable evidence or
material. In this regard the Inquiring Authority relied on the
evidence of PWs 2 and 3 But these 2 witnesses have not given any
evidence to prove that the applicant has participated in the dharna
from the 19th to 22nd Dcember,2006 or assaulted Shri V.K.Praveen on
30.11.2006. What they have stated is that they have given some
statements at the time of preliminary enquiry held on 16th May,2007
before the Sr.Deputy Accountant General,Kerala in which they
have stated that the applicant had physically assaulted Shri
V.K.Praveen and verbally abused and threatened him.To accept the
previous statements of these witnesses the Inquiring Authority found
that these witnesses were not cross-examined at the time of the
enquiry. But the specific case set up by the learned counsel appearing
for the applicant is that none of the previous statements
alleged to have been recorded by the Sr.Deputy Accountant General has
been legally proved or even marked at the time of the enquiry. Instead
the witnesses were asked in the chief whether they have such a
statement on reading the alleged previous statements to the
witnesses which the witnesses admitted, but there is no recording of
such previous statements as evidenced in their depositions. If the
reliance placed by the Inquiring Authority on the previous statements,
alleged to have been given by the witnesses during the preliminary
enquiry, cannot be accepted as legal evidence. Further the Inquiring
Authority held that the documents produced and proved through the
Presenting Officer marked as Annexures A1, A5 and A6 would show that
the applicant was present and participated in the dharna held between
19th and 22nd December,2006. When we analyze these documents, which
would show that Annexure A1 is only a note of the Dy.Accountant
General dated 9.3.2007 and Annexure A5 is another note of the
Dy.Accountant General dated 19.1.2007 and Annexure A6 is the copy of
the memo dated 27.4.2007 to the applicant and all these documents
would not show that the applicant was actually present or participated
in the dharna as found by the Inquiring Authority and further Annexure
A5 would show that it is a note showing the name of the applicant who
was signatory to the note for calling a dharna but that does not mean
that the applicant was actually present at the spot or
participated in the dharna held on the 19th to 22nd
December,2006.Annexure A5 itself is a part of the notice dated
9.1.2007 and the call for agitational steps by the audit and
accounts associations notice is dated 18.12.2006 If so, the
appearance of the name of one Manuel, even without identifying that is
the applicant, cannot be accepted as an evidence to prove that the
applicant was present at the premises of the Accountant General office
and participated in the dharna held on the 19th to 22nd December,2006.
At the same time the explanation given by the applicant would show
that he was on outdoor duty during the relevant time and he claimed
TA&DA for the the relevant days which were granted by the authorities.
But the Inquiring Authority answered the said case set up by the
applicant stating that the defence has not proved any evidence to
support its claim that the charged officer was not present at the
alleged scene of occurrence of the incident in question. It is also
of the case of the applicant that the applicant was on official duty
allotted to him in outside audit wing on 19th and 20th December,2006
and he was on outside audit duty at the Police Headquarters,
Trivandrum on the 21st December,2006 and he was on transit to District
Police Office, Kannur on 22nd December,2006 To prove this fact the
applicant produced D3 series which would dhow that the tour diary of
the week ending 23.12.006 signed by the applicant and countersigned by
the supervising officer in the audit party, the attendance
register of the audit party and watch register maintained at SRA
headquarters and all these documents would show that the applicant
was present at the spot as found by the Inquiring Authority. To
overcome these documentary evidences the Inquiring Authority
held that marking one's attendance on a particular day in the
Attendance Register cannot be considered as a conclusive proof that he
attended the office during the entire day and told as the applicant
admitted that he was at Trivandrum on the 20th December,2006 to
carry out the work at the Police Headquarters, the Inquiring
Authority came to the conclusion that the applicant was present or
might have been present at the premises of the office of the
Accountant General and participated in the dharna. But these findings
are not supported by any material or evidence as acceptable for
entering such a finding. It is also to be noted that the Inquiring
Authority considered the copy of the complaint alleged to have been
filed by Shri V.K.Praveen regarding the assault made by the applicant
and the evidence of PW 3 to support the finding that the applicant was
present at the spot and assaulted Sri V.K.Praveen. In this context the
very inception of P2 the complaint alleged to have been filed by Shri
V.K.Praveen itself is doubtful as the author of the complaint has not
been examined or even cited for examination at the time of enquiry. To
avoid the examination of Shri V.K.Praveen no explanation is
forthcoming from the prosecution side and that apart the said
complaint filed by Shri V.K.Praveen is dated 1.12.2006, whereas it has
reached the Accountant General or acted on by the Accountant General
only on 9.4.2007 and such a long delay for not taking any action in
the complaint filed by Shri V.K.Praveen is enough to discard this
document as a genuine one. In this context the learned counsel for the
respondents relies on the judgements of the Apex Court reported in
1998(7) SCC 97; Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research
and others vs. Dr.Anil Kumar Ghosh and another and 1999(8)SCC 582;
Hardwari Lal vs. State of U.P. & others. In the first case, it is held
by the Apex Court that the genuineness of documents produced during
the enquiry was not in dispute and therefore their authors need not be
examined and if opportunities are given to the delinquent officer to
inspect the documents during the course of enquiry omission to mark
such exhibits during the course of the enquiry did not vitiate the
enquiry. In the second case the Apex Court taken the view that if
there are other materials sufficient to come to a conclusion one way
or the other, observing the impact of the complainant's testimony
could not be visualized and also evidence of other witnesses are
sufficient to prove the charge against the delinquent officer, the
non-examination of the complainant will not vitiate the enquiry. But
when analyzing the evidence of the case in hand, the facts considered
by the Apex Court in the above two cases are entirely different from
that the facts under discussion. If the evidence of Shri Praveen is
excluded and what other witnesses namely PWs 1 to 3 given, by itself
is not enough to conclude that the applicant was present and assaulted
or threatened Shri V.K.Praveen. In this regard the evidence of PW I
would show that he had given a report to the Dy.Accountant General
regarding the incident and what is the contents of that report is not
spoken to by any witness before the Inquiring Authority. Sri Praveen
had told him that the applicant threatened and and assaulted him on
30.11.2006. But the evidence of these witnesses is not substantial or
corroborated by other evidence and being an unsupported piece for
concluding that the applicant was present at the spot and assaulted
Shri V.K.Praveen. If so, a close reading of the documentary evidence
produced and marked through the Presenting Officer and the evidence of
PWs 1 to 3 are not legally acceptable evidence to prove any of the
charge levelled against the applicant. Hence the finding
entered into by the Inquiring Authority is a perverse finding. If
there is no acceptable evidence to prove the charges against the
applicant it is only proper for us to take a conclusion that the
charges levelled against the applicant are not proved by any legally
acceptable evidence. The same is the principle involved in other cases
also. So we are not accepting the same in the light of the facts of
the case in hand. Non-examination of the material witness can draw an
adverse inference as per the judgment of the Apex Court held in AIR
1968 SC 1402 in Karnesh Kumar Singh and others vs. State of U.P.

13. The next point we have to consider is that whether the
Disciplinary Authority has applied his mind while passing the
impugned order of removal from service on the basis of the enquiry
report. The Disciplinary Authority has not given any reason to
accept the findings entered into the Inquiring Authority while
imposing the penalty order except accepting the report of the
inquiring Authority without assigning any reason. A reading of the
impugned order of penalty, namely Annexure AIX order would show that
the finding of the Inquiring Authority is simply followed and without
giving any reason or applying its mind for issuing the penalty order
of dismissal of the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority erred in
accepting the evidence of DW I and DW 2 who had given evidence before
the Inquiring Authority that if the applicant was present in the
office he would have participated in the congregation. But this
finding has been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority on the ground
that as there is evidence to show that the applicant was present at
the Headquarters on that day and this finding of the Disciplinary
Authority is without any basis and further the Disciplinary Authority
found that there is reasonable nexus in the evidence of PWs 2 and 3
regarding the incident and their credibility has not been challenged
by cross- examining them. We have already discussed the evidence of
PWs 2 and 3 regarding the veracity of their evidence and the non-
examination of the complainant Shri V.K.Praveen itself was also found
as a ground for rejection of the charges levelled against the
applicant. But the Disciplinary Authority only had stated that he has
only concurred with the finding of the Inquiring Authority and all the
charges levelled against the applicant have been thus proved
according to the Disciplinary Authority, but we have already discussed
each and every evidence adduced before the Inquiring Authority against
the applicant and we have concluded that there is no evidence to prove
any of the charges levelled against the aplicant. In the above
circumstances, the impugned order of penalty passed by the
Disciplinary Authority is not sustainable. Apart from the above
infirmity of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, it could
be seen that the applicant has filed an appeal before the Appellate
Authority raising various grounds th rein, a copy of which was
produced and marked in the O.A. as Annexure A10. In Annexure A10 the
applicant has raised more than 10 grounds to reject the finding
entered into by the Inquiring Authority and also to set aside the
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. But it is surprisingly
noted by us that none of the grounds in the appeal memorandum has been
considered by the Appellate Authority. No reason has been stated by
the Appellate Authority for confirming the penalty order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority. In this context the judgements of the Apex
Court reported in 2006 (4)SCC 713; in Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United
India Insurance Co.Ltd, and 2008(3)SCC 469;Divisional Forest Officer,
Kothaguden and others vs. Madhusudhan Rao, are relevant. In the first
case, the Apex Court held in paras 32 and 33, as follows:-

"32. The Appellate Authority, therefore, while disposing of the
appeal is required to apply his mind with regard to the factors
enumerated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 37 of the Rules.
The judgment of the civil court being inter parties was relevant. The
conduct of the appellant as noticed by the civil court was also
relevant. The fact that the respondent has accepted the said judgment
and acted upon it would be a relevant fact. The authority considering
the memorial could have justifiably come to a different conclusion
having regard to the findings of the civil court. But, it did not
apply its mind. It could have for one reason or the other refused to
take the subsequent event into consideration, but as he had a
discretion in the matter, he was bound to consider the said question.
He was required to show that he applied his mind to the relevant
facts. He could not have without expressing his mind simply ignored
the same.

33. An appellate order if it is in agreement with that of the
disciplinary authority may not be a speaking order hut the authority
passing the same must show that there had been proper application of
Ind on his part as regards the compliance with the requirements of law
while exercising his jurisdiction under Rule 37 of the Rules."
Further, the Apex Court, in para-36 of the said judgment, while
considering Rule 37 of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and
Appeal)Rules,1975, an analogous provision of Rule 27 of the CCS
(CC&A)Rules,1965 held that:-
"The Appellate Authority, when the Rules require application of
mind on several factors and serious contentions have been raised, was
bound to assign reasons so as to enable the writ court to ascertain
as to whether he had applied his mind to the relevant factors which
the statute requires him to do. The expression "consider" is of
some significance. In the context of the Rules, the Appellate
Authority was required to see as to whether (i) the procedure laid
down in the Rules was complied with; (ii) the enquiry officer was
justified in arriving at the finding that the delinquent officer was
guilty of the misconduct alleged against him; and (iii) whether
penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was excessive." In the
2nd case, the Apex Court while considering Rule 27 of the
CCS(CC&A)Rules, held in para-20, as follows:-
"20. It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional
authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and
confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in the
interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at
least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing
his appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons are
required to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even
in an order affirming the views of the lower forum."

In this context the learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the
respondents also brought to the notice of this Tribunal to a
judgment of the Apex Court reported in JT 2009(2) SC 176 in Roop Singh
Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors, wherein the Apex Court considered
the extent of the duty of the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate
Authority and contended that the Disciplinary Authority as well
as the Appellate Authority are not bound to give all the reasons in
support of their finding. But a reading of the above judgment would
show that a decision must be arrived at on some evidence which is
legally admissible. Further it is stated that though the provisions
of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental
proceeding but the principles of natural justice should be followed
especially when a report of the Enquiry Officer was based on merely
ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have
been sustained, since the inferences drawn by the Enquiry Officer were
apparently not supported by any evidence. We have already concluded
that to prove the charges levelled against the applicant, there were
no material or any evidence available on record and if so, the
findings entered into by the Inquiring Authority, basing on which the
orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the
Appellate Authority, would become a nullity.

14. In the light of the discussions made in this order and the
findings entered, we are of the considered view that the impugned
orders are not sustainable and hence they are liable to be set aside
and the applicant shall be exonerated from all the charges levelled
against him. Accordingly the Application is allowed. Annexure AIX
order of the Disciplinary Authority, and Annexure XI order of the
Appellate Authority, are hereby set aside and the respondents are
hereby directed to reinstate the applicant in service forthwith
with all consequential benefits.
There will be no order as to costs.


(K.George Joseph)
(Justice K.Thankappan)
Member (A)
Member (J)