AKHILESH CHANDRA PORWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-24
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 04,2016

Akhilesh Chandra Porwal Appellant
VERSUS
Union of India And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.C. Tripathi, J. - (1.) Akhilesh Chandra Porwal @ A.C. Porwal is before this Court with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.12.2013 passed by the Chief Executive Officer/Disciplinary Authority, Cantonment Board Office, Kanpur Cantt -respondent No. 2 by which he had proceeded to impose the major penalty of compulsory retirement under Rule 11 (2) (vi) of Cantonment Fund Servant Rules, 1937 on the petitioner.
(2.) As per order passed by this Court on 6.8.2015, the respondent No. 4, namely Sri N.V. Satyanarayna, the then Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Kanpur presently posted as Defence Estate Officer, Cantt. Delhi, was permitted to be deleted from the array of parties.
(3.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner applied for and was selected on the post of Junior Engineer in the Cantonment Board, Kanpur after facing due selection process. He was appointed as Junior Engineer vide order dated 20.1.1994 issued by the Cantonment Executive Officer, Kanpur. As per appointment letter, his services would be governed under Cantonment Fund Servant Rules, 1937 (in short, Rules 1937) as amended upto date and the appointing authority of the petitioner would be Cantt. Executive Officer. The post of Cantt. Executive Officer is now given the nomenclature of Chief Executive Officer. Rule 2 (aa) of Rules 1937 defines "appointing authority" in relation to a Cantonment Fund Servant and Rule 11 deals with penalties. Rule 2 (aa) and Rule 11 of Rules 1937 are reproduced hereinafter: - - "Rule 2 (aa) "appointing authority" in relation to a Cantonment Fund Servant means (i) the authority empowered to make appointments to the post which the servant for the time being holds, or (ii) the authority which appointed the servant to such post as the case may be, whichever authority is the higher authority. 11 (1). The following penalties may for good and for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing be imposed by the Executive Officer on a servant, namely: - - Minor Penalties - (i) Censure; (ii) Fine (2) The following penalties may, for good and for sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed by the appointing authority on a servant, namely: - - Minor Penalties - (i) Withholding of his promotion; (ii) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Board by negligence or breach of order; Major penalties (iv) reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the servant will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the tenure increments of his pay; (v) reduction to a lower time -scale or pay, grade post or service, which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the servant to the time scale or pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from which the servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post or service; (vi) compulsory retirement; (vii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Board in whose service he was at the time of such removal or any other Board; (viii) dismissal from service, which shall ordinarily be disqualification for future employment under the Board under whom he was employed at the time of dismissal or any other board.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.