w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Dr.(Mrs) Sania Akhtar, Working as Principal Director (Senior Principal Scientist), Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology SARP, Bangalore v/s The Director General, Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology, Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers, Guindy, Chennai & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- GENERAL CHEMICAL CORPN. PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U24232WB1954PTC021843

Company & Directors' Information:- IN ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210DL2011PTC212284

Company & Directors' Information:- THE ENGINEERING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1951PTC000699

Company & Directors' Information:- GENERAL PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25200KA1978PTC003409

Company & Directors' Information:- T & S TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U32204DL2008PTC177037

    Original Application No. 170/00417 of 2019

    Decided On, 05 March 2020

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. K.B. SURESH
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. C.V.SANKAR
    By, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

    For the Applicant: Izzhar Ahmed, Advocate. For the Respondents: M. Vasudeva Rao, Sr. PC for CG.



Judgment Text


C.V. Sankar, Member (Admn).

The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

The applicant was appointed to the post of Manager on 12.7.1993 and was promoted to the post of Chief Manager. Further she was promoted to the post of Deputy Director and was posted to Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology (CIPET), Mysore on 12.7.2007. The 1st respondent (Disciplinary Authority)(DA) had issued a charge memo dtd.18.1.2012(Annexure-A1) against the applicant on the following articles of charge:

Article-I: Dr.Mrs.Sania Akthar while functioning as Deputy Director/Head CIPET Mysore during the period August 2007 to July 2008 was grossly negligent, lacked devotion to duty, failing to ensure the integrity of her subordinates which resulted in Mr.H.N.Aravind the then Tech Gr.I of CIPET Mysore Center (subsequently dismissed from service) in fraudulent diverting 151 cheques/demand drafts, amounting to Rs.40,30,205/- drawn in favour of CIPET Mysore to Mr.H.N.Aravind’s Personal Current Account No.19 maintained at M/s Cauvery Kalpatharu Grameena Bank, Hebbal Layout Branch, Mysore. This illegal account was fraudulently opened and operated by Mr.H.N.Aravind in the name of a non existing firm M/s CIPET Poly Consulting Engineers (CIPET Mysore) with his residential address.

This illegal diversion of 151 instruments (Rs.40,30,205/-) and consequent misappropriation by H.N.Aravind took place due to glaring lapses like mala fide non entry cheques/demand drafts in the tapal register on several locations, deliberate maintenance of the said register in loose sheets and deliberate non supervision of Mr.H.N.Aravind by Dr.Sania Akthar.

Article-II: That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said Dr.Sania Akthar had colluded with H.N.Aravind and facilitated misappropriation of money received by CIPET Mysore as detailed hereunder:

Pro forma invoice No.PTC/2007-2008/026C dated 26-04-2007 for Rs.49,214/- was issued to M/s Jain Irrigation systems, Jalgaon by H.N.Aravind. They had issued a HDFC Cheque No.856451 dt.09-02-08 for Rs.48,102/- (Rs.49,214 less 1112/- TDS) and this amount was realized in CA-19 on 27-02-2008. For this transaction Dr.Sania Aktar had issued Test Report No.3758 (s.No.5834, 5835, 5836, 5837, 5838, 5839) Dated 17-12- 2007.

The above acts of Dr.Sania Akthar confirms her connivance which resulted in H.N.Aravind misappropriating the above sum of Rs.48,102/- showing her lack of integrity, devotion to duty and her prejudicial behaviour against the interest of the institute.

Article-III: That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said Dr.Sania Aktar had approved payment of full salary for the period August 2007 to July 2008 to Mr.H.N.Aravind even though he was unauthorizedly absent for period of 46 days during the said period, resulting in a loss of Rs.19,591/- to CIPET which clearly shows that Dr.Sania Akthar failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a gross and negligent manner.

By the above acts, Dr.Sania Akthar had failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty, and acted in a manner unbecoming of a CIPET Employee. She also acted in a gross and negligent manner, acted dishonestly and had failed to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of her subordinates and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Institute in terms of Rule 2.1 (a) (b) (c) & 2.2(a) read with 2.4 (01) (09) & (12) of CIPET – Conduct and Discipline Rules.

2. The applicant filed defence reply dtd.9.3.2012(Annexure-A3) against the charge memo and requested to drop the charges. The 1st respondent appointed Inquiry Officer(IO) who is in the same rank as that of the applicant and Presenting Officer(PO) who is junior to the applicant in the designation, violating Rule 14(5) (c) of Rule-1965 vide order dtd.18.4.2013(Annexures-A4 & A5). The IO had conducted regular inquiry on 11.6.2013(Annexure-A6) without conducting preliminary inquiry. The IO and PO called the employees of CIPET in the regular departmental inquiry on 27.11.2013, 7.1.2014 & 14.3.2014(Annexures-A7-9). On 23.4.2014(Annexure-A10), the IO had submitted written brief of PO to the applicant to submit her written brief within 10 days. Then the applicant submitted her defence reply on 12.5.2014(Annexure-A11) against the report of PO. The 1st respondent communicated the IO’s report dtd.15.7.2014(Annexure-A12) to the applicant to submit her representation within 15 days. The applicant submitted her defence reply on 31.7.2014(Annexure-A13) & on 18.5.2015(Annexure-A14). The 1st respondent without considering the facts on record and entire procedures in the regular inquiry, had passed order dtd.15.6.2015(Annexure-A15) imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by two stages from Rs.58,050/- per month to Rs.54,200/- per month in the Pay Band & Grade Pay of Rs.37400-67000 & Rs.8900(Grade Pay) for a period of one year with cumulative effect with effect from 15.6.2015. And she will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing her future increments of pay permanently. She will be eligible for regular annual increments, only after the completion of one year from the date of order from the pay of Rs.54,200/-. The applicant submitted appeal dtd.27.7.2015(Annexure-A16) to the appellate authority who vide order dtd.3.11.2015(Annexure-A17) upheld the penalty order of the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed the OA.No.514/2016 before this Tribunal which allowed the OA on 2.12.2016 quashing the appellate authority’s order and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order(Annexure-A18). In pursuance of the said order, the appellate authority(2nd respondent) issued order dtd.27.3.2017(Annexure-A19) confirming the penalty imposed by the DA. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following relief:

a. Set aside the major charge memo CIPET/HO/SA/DIS/2011-12 dated 18.01.2012 (Annexure-A1), report of the presenting officer no.HO/INQ/SA/WB/2014 dated 23.04.2014 (Annexure-A10); report of the inquiry officer no.HO/Admn & Pers-II/SA/Findings-IR/2014/341 dated 15.07.2014(Annexure-A12), penalty order no.HO/PAF/SA/Final order/2015 dated 15.06.2015(Annexure-A15) and appellate order C16/1/2015-Org.Estt (FTS: 8149) dated 27.03.2017(Annexure-A19) as illegal, without facts on records and against the parameters of the rules of law.

b. Direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount from pay under penalty with interest of 18% from the date of implementation of the penalty till the final payment with all consequential benefits, and

c. Grant relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper, with costs, in the interest of justice and equity.

3. The applicant submits that on promotion she was transferred from Lucknow to Mysore where she joined on 12.7.2007 and thereafter she had taken medical leave in the month of October 2007 and joined in November 2007. The Tapal was being entered in loose sheets from 1.4.2004 by Mr.Reddy and the same was in the knowledge of Manager(Accounts) who was also in charge of administration. This practice was not objected by any one even the vigilance officer also has not objected this practice. No written procedure or guidelines was available in CIPET, Mysore with regard to entry of Tapal. The applicant stopped this practice and changed the entry of Tapal to the register in July-2008. Shri Arvind opened one account in the name of CIPET, Mysore on 15.10.2005 i.e. about 2 years prior to the joining of the applicant dtd.12.7.2007. The fraud was detected after transfer of Arvind from Testing department by the applicant on 2.4.2008. From April 2007 to March-2008, more than 300 works were opened and test certificates issued by the testing department. The applicant signed on the test report on 17.12.2007 in good faith only and with a view of facilitating the customer in the interest of the organisation. The task of ascertaining and verifying the attendance of every employee is that of Administrative Section and on verification, salaries were disbursed by the Accounts Section under the approval of the Centre head. The applicant was never reporting officer of Sri Arvind at any point of time during August-2007 to July-2008 and the allegation of deliberate and non-supervision of Mr.Arvind is baseless because he reported to Mr.R.P.Poovannan and further to Mr.B.N.Mohana. The Accounts Section also not verified the attendance of the administrative section prior to the disbursing of the salary. The applicant submits that the DA had not applied his mind before issuing major charge memo and memo is without any reporting authority and has not delegated powers to take departmental procedure. The 11 documents listed in major charge memo in Annexure-III have not proved the integrity and negligence of the applicant attached to the post and they only indicated the fraudulent act of Sri Arvind. Therefore the 1st respondent failed to act as a quasi judicial functionary in her case as she was a whistle blower. As per the list of documents at Annexure-III of the charge memo, the document-7 is related to Jain irrigation cheque for Rs.48,102/- which was realized in account of Arvind on 27.2.2008. The 1st respondent failed to establish the connivance between the applicant and Sri Arvind. Regarding test report dtd.17.12.2007, the applicant signed only one document on this report in good faith because the concerned officer was on leave. The IO who is in the same rank of the applicant was wrongly appointed under Rule 14 (2) of CCS(CCA) 1965 since the charge memo was not initiated under Rule-14 of CCS(CCA) Rule-1965. The PO in his report dtd.23.4.2014 submitted all the charges as proved, whereas the IO in his report dtd.15.7.2014 submitted that the Article-I was proved, Article-II was proved beyond reasonable doubt which is not applicable in departmental proceedings and Article-III was not proved. The applicant pointed out the procedural lapses in framing the charges, appointing IO & PO, examining the witnesses and initiation of major penalty proceedings. The respondents have not considered para-12 of DOPT OM dtd.14.5.2007(Annexure-A27 & 28) while imposing the penalty which is illogical and against the principles of natural justice and as a financial loss till her retirement. There is no rule prescribed for cumulative penalty in permanent nature till retirement. The respondents have not considered the appeal properly. Thus the respondents have violated Articles 14, 309 & 311(2) of the Constitution and violated Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rule-1965. The applicant has relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. J.Ahmed(1979(2)SCC 286), State of Punjab vs.Chaman Lal Goyal (1995 SCC (2) 570), D.Subramanyan Rajadevan (AIR 1996 SC 2634), Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 395), UOI vs.A.N.Suxena (AIR 1992 SC 1233), Tarun Kumar Banerjee(AIR 2000 SC 2028), Registrar Vs.Uday Singh (AIR 1997 SC 2288), Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K.Chopra [(1991) 1 SCC 759], RP.Bhatt vs.UOI [(1986 2 SCC 651] and Kaushlesh Narain Singh vs. Upper Aayukt, Pratham Mandal, Allahabad[(2003) 4 UPLBEC 3149(Alld.)] in support of her contention. The applicant relied on the identical cases decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA.No.1804/2012 in the case of C.M.Sinha vs.Dept. of Revenue, OA.No.220/2006 in the case of G.P.Sewali vs. UOI and TA.No.120/2013 in the case of Dr.S.K.Das vs. Secy., Min. of Chemical & Fertilizers, N.Delhi and the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Durga Prasad Kumar vs. UOI(SLJ 2010(3) CAT 311). She also relied on the similar cases of R.Dhakshinamurthy vs. Department of Posts in WP.No.28462/2013 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and Ramesh Kumar Maheshwari vs. Director General, Central Institute of Plastics Engineering and Technology(CIPET), Lucknow in WP.1193(s)/2005 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad.

4. Per contra, the respondents have submitted in their reply statement that the Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology(CIPET) was established in 1968 at Chennai under the aegis of Min. of Chemicals & Fertilizers. It is an autonomous society and is headed by Director General who is stationed at the Head Office, Chennai. CIPET carries out testing of raw materials and plastic products as per various national & international standards. It also carries out third party/pre-delivery inspections on behalf of various governments, while so one Sri H N Arvind, Technician(Gr.I) attached to CIPET, Mysore had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the officials of CIPET, Mysore and DDs/Cheques issued in favour of ‘CIPET Mysore’ were credited into a fraudulent current account No.19 opened in a fictitious name of M/s.CIPET Poly Consulting Engineers’(CIPET Mysore) w.e.f.15.10.2005 in Cauvery Kalpataru Grameena Bank, Hebbal Branch, Mysore. The said Arvind had fraudulently diverted 573 nos. of DDs/Cheques for a total sum of Rs.1,25,71,209/- issued by various clients of CIPET towards testing charges/test certificates in favour of CIPET Mysore thereby causing loss to CIPET and wrongful gain to himself and others. Further, the officers namely Dr.B.Ramaraj, Sr.Tech. Officer, Shri R Poovai Poovanan, Technical Officer have directly participated in the fraudulent activities of Sri Arvind. The officers namely Sri KARL Murthy, Chief Manager(Project) and the applicant Dr.Sania Akhtar, Deputy Director of CIPET Mysore have neglected their work at CIPET Mysore and have signed in inspection reports and also facilitated Sri Arvind to divert and also deposit the DDs/Cheques to the fraudulent account maintained by him. The CBI Bangalore had investigated the matter and charge sheeted against Sri H N Arvind, his wife, Dr.B.Ramaraj and Sri Poovai Poovanan and also recommended Regular Departmental Action(RDA) for major penalty against CIPET officials Dr.B.Ramaraj, R.Poovai Poovanan, M V Raman Rao, KARL Murthy, Dr.Sania Akhtar, Sudhakar Reddy, V.Mugundan and K C Manohara. The CVC after perusing the report of CBI has advised CIPET Management to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the above persons for major penalty. As such the Disciplinary Authority(DA) after receiving the advice of CVC has initiated RDA against the above persons and awarded various punishments. In the inquiry against the applicant, it is well established that only due to glaring lapses on her part and deliberate non-supervision of her subordinates especially Sri H N Arvind, Sri H N Arvind diverted 151 DDs/Cheques during the tenure of applicant which belong to CIPET Mysore and deposited the same in his fraudulent account to the tune of Rs.40,30,205/-. Since this is a serious allegation and for the proved misconduct, DA after due enquiry imposed the punishment of ‘reduction to a lower in the time scale of pay by two Bench stages for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Though the applicant alleged that the fraud was being perpetrated even prior to her joining in Mysore centre and she has no exposure or training in administration and accounts area and only her PA with collusion of testing department’s staff has done this fraud, in the inquiry it is established that only due to her glaring lapses and deliberate non-supervision, these illegal acts were done by Sri H N Arvind. It is only during the period of 8 months of her tenure, 151 cheques/DDs amounting to Rs.40,30,205/- have been diverted to the fraudulent account of Sri Arvind. Her allegation that DA had not applied his mind before issuing major charge memo and memo is without any reporting authority and has not delegated the powers to take departmental procedure are all without any substance. Because CIPET is an autonomous society and it has its own administrative manual and Discipline and Conduct rules and the charge memo issued to the applicant is as per rules of CIPET conduct and discipline rules. The allegation that the 11 documents have not proved the integrity and negligence of the applicant attached to the post and they only indicated the fraudulent act of Sri Arvind is also without any substance, because the charges against the applicant are laxity in supervision by her as a CIPET Centre Head, Mysore, non-entry of all instruments in inward total register which are kept in loose sheets and she thus facilitated Sri Arvind in fraudulent diversion of the 151 DDs. Her contentions that the 1st respondent failed to act as a quasi judicial functionary and the applicant was a whistle blower etc. are all false and without any merit. In this case the CBI has taken cognizance of the matter and it has also enquired her in the investigation, under such circumstances, she cannot raise these pleas as an innocent person. Further, she has not raised all these pleas either in her written statement or defence or her written brief and so she is precluded to raise these pleas at this late stage. The allegation that the 1st respondent failed to establish the connivance between the applicant and Sri Arvind is denied as it is well settled that connivance cannot be established by direct evidence and it can be inferred from the circumstances shown in the case. In this case, the applicant has signed the test reports and given certificates Ex-MD8 without verifying whether the charges for the testing were collected or not. From this it is established that she is connived with Sri Arvind who has misappropriated the amount. The applicant submitted that she has signed only one document on the test report in good faith. But Ex-MD8 consists of 6 test reports and test certificates and the applicant singed in all the test reports/certificates. Further, it is well settled when the administrative action is contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of the valid exercise of administrative power, then it can be presumed that there is want of ‘good faith’. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that she has signed the test report in good faith is without any merit. The contention that the procedure prescribed in CCS(CCA) Rules is violated has no merit since CIPET conduct and discipline rule 2.8.3(b) clearly says that ‘if no written statement of defence is submitted by the employee, the DA may itself inquire into the articles of charge or may if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint, an IO for the purpose’. The committee of subordinate legislation(4th Loksabha) has considered and observed that though they agree it may not possible to entrust always enquiries against delinquent officer to gazetted officers, the enquiry should be conducted by an officer who is sufficiently senior to the officer whose conduct is being enquired into, as inquiry by a junior officer cannot commend confidence which it deserves. In 1997 (7) SCC 68 Pankajesh vs. Tulsi Gramin Bank, the Supreme Court held that ‘by mere delegating the inquiry, whether the inquiry officer is of the same cadre or of higher grade than that of the delinquent officer did not cause any material irregularity nor resulted any injustice to the delinquent officer. Hence, there is no point in the contention that the IO is in the same rank and he is not a proper person to be appointed as IO. Further as per rule 2.8.3(c), ‘the DA may appoint a CIPET employee or a legal practitioner to be known as PO to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge and it never says that the employee must be senior to the delinquent officer. After initiating the domestic inquiry, the IO need not do any preliminary inquiry and he has to conduct the first hearing as a preliminary hearing to inform about the procedures to be adopted in the domestic inquiry. The applicant has not complained about the procedure adopted by the IO either before the DA or before AA. Hence, she has stopped from raising this objection at this stage. The allegation with regard to the evidence is without any merit. Departmental actions were initiated against all the persons who are connected with the documents at CIPET Mysore centre and were also imposed punishments in the departmental enquiry, hence the management is handicapped from examining those connected departmental persons in the inquiry against the applicant. It is well settled that the admitted facts need not be proved during inquiry. The contention that she has unearthed the massive scam and exposed the perpetrators of the fraud is denied as the CBI has taken cognizance of this illegal diversion and fraud committed by the officers of the CIPET and in fact the applicant was also an accused in the FIR filed by the CBI and only because there is no sufficient evidence against the applicant to prosecute before the criminal court, they suggested that a regular departmental action may be taken against the applicant for her misconduct. Further the quantum of punishment imposed on the applicant cannot be considered as harsh considering the seriousness of the charges levelled and proved against the applicant. The order passed by the DA is clear and without any ambiguity. The word ‘cumulative effect’ was put in the order only for clarity and it is made only to stress that the reduction will have the effect of postponing her future increments of her pay. The contention of the applicant that the respondents have not considered the DOPT OM dtd.14.5.2007 has no merit since in the punishment order, the DA clearly specified the period of reduction and also the reduction is made permanent. When the appellate authority concurs with the finding of the DA, it need not give elaborate and separate reasons. It is not necessary for the appellate authority to again discuss the evidence and come to the same findings as that of the DA for the same reasons for the finding. No doubt, that the rule cast a duty on the appellate authority to consider the relevant factors set forth in the appeal, but it is not the requirement of Article 311 (2) or of the rules of natural justice that in every case, the appellate authority should, in its order, state its own reasons except where it disagrees with the findings of the DA. The applicant has not made any valid or new contentions in the appeal, except the allegations made in her written statement. Hence, it cannot be said that the appellate authority has not discussed the pleadings of the applicant. The respondents have also relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in General Officer Commanding-in-Chief vs. Subhash Chandra Yadav(AIR 1988 SC 876 (879)), UOI vs. J Ahmed (1979 (3) SCR 504), V.Padmanabhan vs.Govt. of AP in CA.No.4717/2009, State of Punjab vs. Chaman Lal Goyal (1995 2 SCC 570) & Narayan Ranteer Thakar vs. State of Maharashtra (1997 1 SCC 299), the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi Development Authority vs. H.L.Saini in LPA No.52/1999, the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in M.Sigamani vs. Director General, CIPET and the order in OA.No.466/2010 passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in support of their contentions. Therefore the orders passed by the DA & AA are well considered orders and it cannot be questioned by the applicant and there is no violation of Articles 14, 309 & 311(2) of the Constitution and Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Therefore, the OA is liable to be dismissed.

5. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the submissions already made in the OA and submits that it is not known as to how the 1st respondent has not known about the fraud regarding transfer of Govt. Money from 15.10.2005 and the Accounts Dept. is already available at CIPET Mysore under the administrative control of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent has exempted the 1st respondent knowingly when the fraud was done from 15.10.2005 to 18.10.2008 under the administrative control by the 1st respondent. There is serious lapse in account of the 1st respondent that the fraud was unaddressed from 2005. The respondents have not stated under what condition/rule the applicant was denied verification of original documents and under what conditions the Prosecution Witnesses were not appeared on behalf of the 1st respondent in the regular hearing and even not cross-examined by the applicant. They have not stated as to how the 1st respondent imposed a permanent penalty without listed prosecution witnesses on behalf of the DA(1st respondent). The respondents have falsely alleged the charges in retrospective effect from 15.10.2005 whereas the applicant joined duty at CIPET Mysore in the month of November 2007 and when she filed fact finding report of fraud against Sri Arvind to the 1st respondent on 18.10.2008, the 1st respondent suspended Sri Arvind immediately. Therefore, the respondents have not considered the events of fraud and alleged the charges retrospectively. The respondents have not stated under which rule of CIPET, the DA imposed the penalty with cumulative effect till her retirement i.e. permanent in nature. The respondents have not denied para-12 of DOPT OM dtd.14.5.2007 that the penalty should be without cumulative effect.

6. We have heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the materials placed on record in detail. The applicant has filed written arguments note. From a detailed examination of the charge memo issued and the proceedings thereon, it is obvious that certain f

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

raudulent diversion of cheques and drafts to be credited to the respondent organisation were siphoned off by one individual by name Aravind from 2005 onwards and the applicant had joined in July 2007 and therefore, she was held responsible for supervisory lapses for the period till July 2008. Apparently the said culprit had siphoned off more than Rs.1.25 crores and during the period of the applicant’s charge as Head of Office in the respondent organisation from July 2007, the amount involved was around Rs.40 Lakhs. The applicant would claim that when she was in-charge, she had transferred the concerned persons from their positions and on coming to know of the diversions of money from one Jain Irrigation, she had only initiated the process of arresting the same diversion and for causing an inquiry to the whole affair leading to the further criminal investigation and action. It is interesting to see from the confession statement of the said Aravind that the said diversions were going on merrily with the connivance of the senior officers who also took the benefit and so on. As rightly contended by the applicant, the said organisation was subjected to the several items of control relating to the Accounts and Audit and therefore holding her responsible for supervisory lapses especially after the fact that there was not a single iota of evidence linking her to the malfeasance and in fact ignoring the fact of her own role in bringing out the whole episode is not prima facie acceptable. It is apparent that the punishment meted out to the applicant is grossly disproportionate to the role played by her. Even relating to the second charge of test report etc., it is obvious that the applicant had a very very minor role as only 6 reports out of several 100 reports were signed by her apparently in good faith in the absence of the designated officers. It is also pertinent to note that there were many vacancies in the Accounts and in the supervisory positions in the organisation and this led to issues of malfeasance etc. From a detailed perusal of the applicant’s explanation and the facts of the case, we have to come to the conclusion that the applicant was punished in a very disproportionate and biased manner by the respondents. However, it is also clear that at least some portion of the blame has to be laid on her role since the diversion of amount due to the organisation continued during her time also even though she had no juncture directly. We therefore, quash Annexures-A15 & A19 and remit the issue back to the respondents to consider the issue in a proper perspective and taking note of the detailed explanation submitted by the applicant to pass an appropriate order confining this only to the direct supervisory lapses if any on the part of the applicant. 7. The OA is allowed to the above extent. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

30-07-2020 Mahrishi Arvind Institute of Engineering, Rajasthan Versus Ranjit Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, R. Natraj Versus M/s. Pathanjali Ayurved Limited, Represented by its Director, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-07-2020 Rajeev Gandhi Memorial College of Engineering & Technology & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
06-07-2020 K. Prem Chander & Another Versus M/s. Hella India Automotive Private Limited Formerly known as FTZ Engineering (P) Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-06-2020 Amar Plastics Versus Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-06-2020 Rohini Gogoi (Under Suspension) Versus State of Assam Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Public Health Engineering Deptt. High Court of Gauhati
19-06-2020 The Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur & Another Versus Dr. Subroto Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 O.R. Rahul & Others Versus Indian Institute of Space Science & Technology, Represented by Its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
22-05-2020 Patel Engineering Ltd. Versus North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (Neepco) Supreme Court of India
19-05-2020 M.G. Narasimha Rao Versus The Chairman, Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement, Roving Squad, Chengalpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-05-2020 Score Information Technology Ltd. Versus Central Organisation, Ex-Serviceman Contributory Health Scheme High Court of Delhi
11-05-2020 South East Asia Marine Engineering & Constructions Ltd. (Seamec Ltd.) Versus Oil India Limited Supreme Court of India
11-05-2020 Posco Engineering & Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sinew Developers Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Authorized Signatory Versus The Appellate Authority under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd V/S The Assistant Commissioner of Labour And Two Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-03-2020 M/s. COPCO Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director K. George Versus Southern Railway, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 Abhighyan Bhattacharya & Another Versus School Of Engineering & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-03-2020 M/s. Rite Choice Foundations and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director, C.K. Sridhar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-03-2020 Jayakumar Assistant Professor-Cum-Assistant Director, Centre For Social Exclusion & Inclusion, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi & Others Versus Dr. Jyothi S. Nair & Others High Court of Kerala
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Versus TOYO Engineering Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
05-03-2020 Dinesh Kumar Rao Versus G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
04-03-2020 Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Limited V/S Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit-1 Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Anil Ramdas Pawar V/S Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-03-2020 S. Aruputharaj Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Education, Science & Technology, Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 M/s. Project Engineering Corporation Limited, Ernakulam, Represented by Manager (Administrations) Binu Jacob Versus M/s. Doshion Private Ltd., Ahmedabad, Represented by Its Director, Rakshit Doshi High Court of Kerala
25-02-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit-I & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 M.I.E.T. Engineering College, Rep. by its Chairman, Er.A. Mohamed Yunus, Trichy & Others Versus The Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Guindy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Nileshbhai Arvindbhai Gandhi, Director, Cube Construction Engineering Limited Versus State of Gujarat & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
14-02-2020 The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Anna University Campus, Chennai Versus Mahendra Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Principal, Namakkal & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Daniel Oommen Versus National Institute of Technology, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
12-02-2020 Richa Jindal Versus Pec University of Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-02-2020 M/s. JV Engineering Associate, Civil Engineering Contractors, Represented by its Partner, S. Jaikumar Versus General Manager, CORE, Allahabad, Represented by Deputy Chief Engineer, Railway Electrification, Chennai, Egmore High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 V. Vennila Versus The Executive Engineering Transmission Line Construction/ Tamilnadu Transmission Corporation Ltd. (TANTRANSCO), Thanjavur District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 Achal Bisht Versus Chandigarh Institute of Hotel Management & Catering Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-02-2020 M/s. Shintec Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Authorised Signatory, Vanagaram Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) JJ Nagar Assessment Circle, Thirumangalam, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Tarun Keshrichand Shah & Another Versus M/s. Kishore Engineering Company & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-02-2020 Rasi Travels & Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd., A company having its Registered Office at Janpath, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Syndicate Bank V/S Narayanadri Institute of Science And Technology and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
03-02-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department, rep. by the Divisional Engineer (H) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division-1 Versus M/s. Jenefa Constructions, Civil Engineering Contractor, rep. by its Partner, M. Arunachalam High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-01-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd. Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Raipur
21-01-2020 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Nandanam, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. UB Engineering Limited, Rep. by its Power of Attorney G.D. Deshpande & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Tractebel Engineering Private Limited Versus Patnazi Power Limited National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
21-01-2020 The Indian Officer's Association, Chennai Versus M/s. Swaruba Engineering Construction Company Private Limited, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 Meerut Development Authority Meerut Versus M/s Civil Engineering Construction Corporation & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-01-2020 State of AP Versus Devi Engineering & Construction High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-01-2020 Masaddar Ali Laskar, Officer Surveyor, Office of the Director GDC, Assam Nagaland, GDC Versus The Union of India, Through the Secretary, To the Government of India, Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-01-2020 M/s. Jullundur Engineering Complany, Jalandhar V/S Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
13-01-2020 The Principal , Global Institute of Fashion Technology (GIFT) & Another Versus Bikramadittya Sai & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
09-01-2020 Ajay Kumar Bishnoi, Former Managing Director, M/s. Tecpro Systems Ltd. Versus M/s. Tap Engineering, Rep. by Jawahar High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 M/s. Sathee Engineering Construction Company, Rep. by its Proprietor, Gopu Kumar, Kollam Versus Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Caparo Engineering India Limited V/S Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs and Excise, Ujjain Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-01-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, "Aaykar Bhavan" Versus Gigabyte Technology (India) Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
06-01-2020 Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, New Delhi Versus Shibu M. Job, Now Working as Director (Postal Life Insurance), Kolkatha & Others High Court of Kerala
03-01-2020 Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Versus Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-01-2020 C. Narayanasamy (Deceased) & Others Versus The Executive Engineer, Agriculture Engineering Department, Tiruvannamalai High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-01-2020 Raj Engineering Works and Others. V/S Indian Overseas Bank DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM
20-12-2019 Infant Jesus College of Engineering, Rep. by its Chair Person, A. Roselet Bai Versus The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 Standard Chartered Bank Versus Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
18-12-2019 M/s. Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Represented by its Authorized Representative, New Delhi Versus V.O.Chidambaram Port Trust High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-12-2019 M/s. Lanco Hills Technology Park Pvt Ltd. Versus Manisha Balkrishna Kulkarni & Another Supreme Court of India
11-12-2019 D.R. College of Engg. & Technology, College Campus at V&PO Kakoda Versus Nitin Parashar Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
02-12-2019 Basava Engineering School of Technology Rep. by its Principal B.J. Patil Versus State of Karnataka Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Department of Technical Education High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
26-11-2019 Mahendra Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Principal, Salem Versus The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-11-2019 National Highways Authority of India Versus Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
21-11-2019 The Registrar, National Institute of Fashion Technology, N.I.F.T. Campus, Taramani, Chennai & Another Versus Sam D. Raja Prabhu & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2019 M/s. Coverntry Springs and Engineering Company Limited & Others Versus M/s. Assets Reconstruction Company of India Limited (ARCIL) & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
15-11-2019 The Manager, Vimal Jyothi Engineering College, Kannur & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
15-11-2019 M/s. Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kerla Water Authority High Court of Kerala
13-11-2019 Majaffar Hussain Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-11-2019 The Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Sub Regional Office, Kochi Versus M/s. Western Marine Engineering, Kochi, Represented by Its Managing Partner, K.T. Jacob High Court of Kerala
13-11-2019 Biju Borah Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Department of Posts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication Information & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
08-11-2019 Ranjit Sukla Baidya, Tripura Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Post, Ministry of Communication & Technology, Government of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
29-10-2019 Vinod Kumar Jain Versus U.T. Administration, through Secretary Engineering, Chandigarh & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
29-10-2019 K.A. Mohammed Manikfan, Junior Scientific Officer, Department of Science & Technology, Kavaratti Versus Union of India, Rep. by The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti & Others High Court of Kerala
25-10-2019 Hindustan Engineering Training Centre, Rep. By its President 40, Chennai Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax –III 121, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-10-2019 Teledata Technology Solutions Versus Official Liquidator High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-10-2019 S. Ravi & Others Versus Dev Anand Vijayan, Executive Director, The Management of Sri Karthikeya Spinning & Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd., Formerly known as Perur Engineering Products, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-10-2019 Vitalo Plastics Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its General Manager, Chennai & Another Versus The Deputy Labour Commissioner (Minimum Wages), (Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-10-2019 M/s. Steer Engineering Private Limited, Represented herein by its authorized Signatory, Satish Padmanabhan Versus M/s. Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US)LLC & Others High Court of Karnataka
17-10-2019 M/s. Teems Engineering Construction, Rep. by its Partner, G.R. Ravi, Chennai Versus The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, General Construction Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-10-2019 Vivek Verma Versus Ipro Sugar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
11-10-2019 R. Rajkumar & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Science & Technology, Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
30-09-2019 M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory A. Vinolin Versus M/s. Shri Ramana Geavy Engineering P. Ltd., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-09-2019 Snehacharya Institute of Management & Technology Versus State of Kerala High Court of Kerala
26-09-2019 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Versus FEPL Engineering (P) Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
23-09-2019 National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi & Others Versus M/s T.K. Engineering Consortium Pvt. Ltd., Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
13-09-2019 Pragatisheel Engineering Shramik Sangh Industrial Estate, Chhattisgarh Versus Simplex Castings Ltd, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2019 Ramsay Exim & Technology Private Limited & Others ICICI Bank Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-09-2019 K. Dhanasekar Engineering Contractor Versus The Union of India, rep.by its General Manager Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2019 Ethos Ltd. Versus Vijay H.A. Proprietor Interscap Engineering National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2019 Manjeera Engineering & Construction Company Private Limited Versus Union of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-09-2019 Ashish Manik Versus Sr Marine & Offshore Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
06-09-2019 Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-09-2019 M/s. Velar Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director A.C. Vadhivelu Versus The Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Kanchipuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2019 IL&FS Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Formerly Maytas Infra Ltd., Represented by Prabhakar Reddy Versus Government of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
29-08-2019 Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair, Rtd. Professor & Director of School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi & Another Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology, Represented by Its Registrar, Kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
28-08-2019 Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Versus A Consortium of Sime Darby Engineering Sdn. Bhd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay