Misconduct in Union Activities Involving Financial Irregularities and Forgery is Amenable to CCS (Conduct) Rules

The Petitioner, a Civilian Carpenter originally with the Indian Army and later posted to the Air Force Station, Faridabad, was served a Memorandum of Charge on 29.04.2016.

The charges alleged that between 2015 and 2016, despite not being an office bearer of the Civilian Karamchari Union, he unauthorizedly collected subscriptions and used forged receipt books.

During the preliminary inquiry, the Petitioner admitted to collecting approximately ₹3,000 from 30 employees but claimed authority as a "Joint Secretary".

Despite multiple notices, the Petitioner failed to participate in the formal inquiry, leading to ex-parte proceedings.

The Inquiry Authority found him guilty of Article I and II, noting his past record of three penalties (Article III).

The Disciplinary Authority imposed "Compulsory Retirement", which was upheld by the Appellate Authority.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed his challenge on 19.09.2023.

1. Whether the alleged financial irregularities and forgery related to Union activities fall within the ambit of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice

3. Whether the Station Commander (Air Force) was the competent authority to issue the charge sheet and impose penalty on a Group 'C' employee

Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which mandates that every Government servant maintain absolute integrity and refrain from conduct unbecoming of a servant.

The court relied on the principle established in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1996), which limits the High Court's interference to cases of perversity, lack of evidence, or procedural illegality, rather than the correctness of the decision itself.

Rule 14 and Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, regarding the procedure for imposing major penalties.

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s argument that union-related conduct is exempt from service rules; it held that unauthorized collection of money and forgery of documents constitute financial misconduct and lack of integrity, which squarely fall under "conduct unbecoming of a Government servant" regardless of the union context.

On natural justice, the Court noted that the Petitioner was served five separate notices via registered post but chose not to participate, thus he could not later claim a lack of opportunity.

Regarding competency, the Court observed that since the Petitioner was posted to the Air Force, the Station Commander (equivalent to the rank of Colonel) acted as the Appointing/Disciplinary Authority as per the schedules of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

The Court determined that the penalty of compulsory retirement was not "shockingly disproportionate" given the proven charges of financial dishonesty and the Petitioner's previous record of three penalties.

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the penalty of Compulsory Retirement was upheld; the High Court affirmed the CAT's order, ruling that it does not sit as an appellate authority over disciplinary findings unless they are perverse or without evidence.