Judgment:
1. A charge sheet, under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (for short the rules), was issued to the applicant, while he was functioning as Cashier, in the office of the Executive Engineer, Telecom, Hyderabad, in 1992. It was alleged that he demanded Rs. 200/- on 19.9.91 as bribe from Sri G.S.N. Raju, Contractor for preparing cheque favouring him and he was caught red handed by CBI, Hyderabad when he accepted the bribe of Rs. 200/- on 19.9.91. The applicant submitted his explanation denying the charge and thereupon the disciplinary authority appointed an Inquiry Officer who found that the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority having disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and holding that the charge were not conclusively proved, nevertheless with the view that the said conclusion would not affect pecuniary transaction made with the complainant in his private capacity, and taking a lenient view, imposed a penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect, by its order dated 14.2.1997.
2. Thereafter the applicant received a communication on 6.8.97 proposing to revise the order of disciplinary authority. On 23.3.99, the respondent served a show cause notice proposing to impose a major penalty of reduction to a lower stage of Rs. 4560/- in the time scale of Rs. 3200-4900. The applicant submitted his representation. However, by proceedings dated 27.7.99 the punishment of reduction to a lower stage of Rs. 4900/- from the then pay of Rs. 5070/- was imposed. The reduction was for a period of 4 years and during the period of punishment, the applicant would not earn any increment of pay. This order is under challenge in this OA.3. The learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri P.B. Vijaya Kumar, in his sole ground of attack, contends that the impugned order is vitiated as it was passed at the instance of the CBI, Hyderabad, which is absolutely an alien agency and not a competent authority under Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules to revise the penalty.
4. It is further submitted that as the appellate authority, in fact, came to the conclusion that the charge was not proved conclusively, it should have set-aside the order imposing penalty. On the other hand, the punishment was enhanced only acting in obedience to the CBI.5. The OA is opposed by the respondent. It is denied that the action was taken by the respondent at the instance of CBI, Hyderabad, but it was admitted that the revising authority had indicated the receipt of the letter by CBI, Hyderabad, as the ground for revision. It is submitted that the impugned action was taken strictly in accordance with the rules.
6. Having heard the Counsel for the applicant and the respondent, we find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant.
The impugned action was purported to have been taken by the appellate authority exercising powers under Rule 29(1) of the rules. Under the above provisions, the appellate authority could invoke power of revision to enhance the penalty after giving notice. It is not in dispute that such power vests with the respondent.
7. The learned Counsel for the applicant takes us to the following findings arrived at by the respondent in the impugned order, which we find it useful to reproduce:-- "9.6.17. Thus the charge that Sri D.S.R. Anjaneyulu, C.O. again demanded on 19.9.91 a bribe of Rs. 200/- and wrote a cheque after he was approached by the complainant with the bribe amount (as mentioned in the annexure I and II of the charge sheet etc.) is not proved.
9.8.3. Sri D.S.R. Anjaneyulu has mentioned that he tried to establish this fact of giving loan by him to Sri G.S.N. Raju through defence witness. But the I.O. refused to permit the defence witness and hence he had no chance to prove it vide his statement in the written defence brief filed before the I.O. (Vide P. 11 of II). XXX XXX XXX 9.9.3. With the corroborated evidences of the above two, it may fairly be concluded that the C.O. was not in the habit of demanding any bribe.
From a consideration of all the above and all the evidence adduced in this case the following conclusions could be reached.
10.0.1. The charge that Sri D.S.R. Anjaneyulu demanded a sum of Rs. 200/- on 18.9.91 as bribe from Sri G.S.N. Raju Contractor, for preparing a cheque favouring him etc. is not established.
10.0.2. The charge that Sri D.S.R. Anjaneyulu again demanded on 19.9.91 abribe of amount of Rs. 200/- from Sri G.S.N. Raju and wrote a cheque after complainant informed him that he brought the amount demanded and asked him to write the cheque is also not established.
10.0.3. The charge that Sri D.S.R. Anjaneyulu accepted the amount of Rs. 200/-from Sri G.S.N. Raju complainant, is established.
10.0.4. The charge that the amount accepted by Sri D.S.R. Anjaneyulu from Sri G.S.N. Raju was a bribe amount is not fully established.
From a consideration of all the above points I, Sri B, Sreenivasa Moorthy, Chief Engineer, Telecom Civil Zone, Hyderabad, who is the competent authority to revise the order issued by the disciplinary authority, hereby hold that the charge mentioned in the charge Sheet No. Vig-17/Civil/HD/ 52, dated 2.4.92 issued by Sri D.S.R. Anjaneyulu TOA Gr. 1 is partly proved." A bare reading of the above findings given by the respondent himself should not normally lead to the conclusion that the charge was partly proved. On the basis of the above findings, it was sought to be contended that though the applicant's guilt was doubtful as it was not established that the amount accepted was towards bribe, then the applicant deserved to be exonerated. On the other hand, punishment was enhanced. It is argued that the impugned order was not passed on the basis of the findings arrived at on the facts of the case but only as the respondent had been influenced by the CBI, Hyderabad to enhance the punishment, as seen from the letter written by the CBI asking the respondent to revise the punishment. But for such letter respondent would not have taken any action on the contextual facts and findings of the disciplinary authority to enhance the punishment.
8. This argument draws support from the sole ground mentioned by the respondent in the impugned order at para 5.0.0, which is reproduced as under:-- The CBI, Hyderabad who was the presenting authority in this case felt that the above said punishment made by the disciplinary authority on the official was inadequate and requested for imposing enhanced punishment. This was communicated through Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, Hyderabad, vide No. TA/Vig/68/GC/91/208/112, dated 14.7.97 and the undersigned was requested to revise the case under provisions of Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide letter of CGMT above and also letter No. TA/Vig/68/GC/91/208/116, dated 29.7.97." 9. The Counsel for the respondents has also produced before us, at our direction, an office copy of letter dated 14.7.97 which reads as under:-- "Sub : RC 24(A)/91-Hyd-RDA against Sri D.S.R.. Anjaneyulu, W.C. Grade I, O/o EE, T.D. Vijayawada--Review of final orders issued against the accused PS. Ref: Memo. No. 5(19)TCC/KVJ/96-97/180 dtd. 14.2.97 issued by Sri S.N.S. Niranjan, SE, TCC, VJ to the charged official.
The Supdt. Engineer, Telecom Civil Circle, Vijayawada has finalised the Rule 14 disc, case pending against the above said official and has imposed the punishment of 'withholding of one increment for a period of one year' vide his memo referred to above.
The SP, CBI, Hyderabad has felt that the above said punishment imposed on the official is inadequate when the charge of accepting bribe by the PS from the complainant was proved during the inquiry and requested for imposing enhanced punishment.
You are therefore requested to review the case, as per the provision of Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, after calling of the entire records of the above disc. case.
An immediate action in the matter is solicited as the case has to be reviewed within a period of six months w.e.f. 14.2.97 date of imposition of punishment by the SE (Civil), Vijayawada.
As seen from the letter, it is clear that the Vigilance Officer of the CBI has conveyed the feeling of the SP, CBI that the punishment was inadequate and there was also a categorical request to review the case.
Very fairly, the respondent had mentioned the above request as the ground for reviewing the punishment. This request, appears to have been taken seriously, perhaps coming from the S.P., CBI, cannot be lightly brushed away.
10. From the above facts, it is clear that the request having gone to the respondent from the CBI, was indeed acted upon promptly and action was taken by the respondent. When the respondent himself had admitted in the impugned order that this was the only ground for him to revise the order, no further proof of his having been influenced can be required.
11. In this context, it may also be useful to notice the disciplinary authority's findings in its order dated 14.2.97:-- "Summing up all ab initio and as discussed in extenso, I hold that the charge levelled against Sri D.S.R. Anjaneyulu, the charged officer, has not been proved conclusively.
17.0.0. However, the said conclusion cannot in any way affect the pecuniary transaction made with the complainant Sri G.S.N. Raju by the Charged Officer, Shri D.S.R. Anjaneyulu purely in private capacity, in the office premises during working hours. This action of Charged Officer Shri D.S.R. Anjaneyulu was in violation of Official Rules and regulations. Considering the service already put in by the official in the department, I take a lenient view and I order that "One increment be withheld for a period of one year without cumulative effect." This order will come into force from the date of issue." Thus, we find, there was no conclusive proof against the applicant as regards his guilt. But by some curious reasoning, the applicant was penalised.
12. Viewed in the light of the facts and findings, the only irresistable inference that could be drawn is that the impugned notice was the result of the letter of CBI. The authority who is vested with the power should exercise such power by application of his mind and any action taken at the instance of an alien agency is impermissible. It is a colourable exercise of power.
13. In Satyendra Chandra Jain v. Punjab National Bank and Ors., 1998 SCC (L&S) 211, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the order of punishment which was found to be imposed on the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance Officer who was an authority alien to the authorities under the provisions of the Punjab National Bank Officer/Employees (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. Hence the impugned order passed by the respondent cannot be sustained.
14. The OA succeeds and the impugned order is quashed. The respondent is directed to extend all the increments withheld and pay the amounts due with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.