President's Power Of Review Under Rule 29(A) Of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 Is Of A Revisionary Nature And Not Of A a Nature Of Reviewing One's Own Order: CAT Cuttack

Brief Facts:

The matter pertained to a departmental proceeding initiated against the Applicant in 2007 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, resulting in a punishment of withholding two annual increments permanently. However, the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, through an order, revoked this punishment and instead ordered dismissal from service. Following an appeal by the Applicant, the Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi (“Respondent No. 1”), in an order, quashed the dismissal order. Subsequently, the order of punishment of withholding two annual increments remained. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment (“Respondent No. 2”), by an order proposed revising the punishment, leading the Applicant to challenge this show cause memo in the Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack (“Tribunal”). Respondent No. 1, on the advice of UPSC, suggested imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement with a withholding of 20% of the monthly pension for 5 years. The Tribunal dismissed the original application. However, during the pendency of a Review Application (RA), Respondent No. 2, communicated the President of India's decision, imposing compulsory retirement with the pension withholding from 11.01.2018. Feeling aggrieved, the Applicant approached the Tribunal and filed an original application.

The Respondents argued that the penalty of withholding two increments permanently, imposed initially, was not commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved in the Inquiry Report. They argued that it is against the public interest to retain an official with such grave misconduct. After seeking advice from UPSC and considering the Applicant's reply, the President, under Rule 29 (1) (i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, set aside the previous penalty orders and imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement along with withholding 20% of the monthly pension for 5 years.

Observations by the Tribunal:

The Tribunal noted that Rule 29(1)(i) grants the President the discretion to revise orders at any time, without any temporal limitations, provided there is consultation with the commission where necessary. Additionally, Rule 29-A supplements this authority by allowing the President to review any order passed under the rules upon the emergence of new material or evidence that could not have been presented earlier.

The Tribunal held that the President, after receiving input from the UPSC and considering the Applicant's appeal, made the decision to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement and the withholding of 20% of pension for 5 years. It held that the President's action did not entail a review of his own previous order but rather the exercise of his power as a revisionary authority.

Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the original application.

Case Title: Bijay Kumar Barik vs Union of India and Ors.

Case Number: OA No. 62 of 2019.

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. R Acharya, counsel.

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. M R Mohanty, counsel.

Click Here To Read /Download Order