Phone No.: 011/2617 2676, 26100251, 26178345 Fax:011-26715296

.>Jfatz f i4 , !cer

Employees' Provident Fund Organisation ,3P1 'irtd remit

(Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India)

+Id cil T.S41,10. 15. 21W-41 Wrii 9t f=1 -max ,6

Vigilance Head Quarters, 15, Bhikaiji Cama Place, New Delhi — 110066

No. Vig/Co-ord/1/2012/Circular/

Dated: 2 8 FEE 2014 To

All ACCs(Zones)/All RPFCs/Dy. Director(Vigilance)s/OIC of SROs/SAOs

Sub: Hon'ble CAT judgment dated 1.1.2012 in OA No. 195/2010-reg

Sir

Please find enclosed herewith a copy of Hon'ble CAT judgment in OA No.

195/2010 dated 1.1.2012 alongwith enclosures for information.

Yours faithfully

Enclosure: As above

(lima Mandal)

Regional P F Commissioner I (Vigilance)

Copy To: RPFC, (NDC), (NRPO)-with a request to upload on the Website.

: Applicant.

Rep. by Mr. V.S. Paulral : Counsel for the apptica,

CENTRAL ADMINISTR kTIVE TRIBUNAL Madras Bench; Madras.

1064-L 2-009 ci

Ni) ,1-9k5 .411L0

Dated the ) uay of Ianuar/ , two thousand twelve.

Hon'bie Mr. G. Shanthappa, Judi•al Member.

Hon'bie Mrs, O.P.Sosamma, Administrative Member.

0.A.No.1064/2009

C.R. Kaleel, Enforcement Officer/Accounts Officer, Office of the. Regional P.F. Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund .

Organisation Region a I Office, rtiad.L!i..)i 625 001 : Applicant.

Rep. by Mr. V.S. Paulraj Counsel for the applicant.

VersteS 1. The Chairman, Central Buacd of Trustees, rep. by the

Secretary/ The Central provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Funo Organisation, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, Bhiknaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066.

2. The Secretary/the Chair person, Executive Committee, The Central Board of Trustees Employees Pravide.nt Fund Organisation Ministry o Latraur and Erroptoyvinemt, Shram Saktni Bhawan ., - New DertiLi 1.10 001

P.F COrnrnisiiiortzt,T,,. E=pidy,ees eat Fund angoanisatitn, ?e Tonal;. Oil ei Bhavi,shyanigkiti Bhavven, Post Etox 3•875 COirribatore 641:aire. - • The COmmiss•ioner, Employees . Provident Fund Organisation, Reginak Office, ; BhavistrTyanichhi Bhawan, Madurai, 625001

: Respondents

Rep. ti\/ Mr. V. Vijay Shankar, : Counsel for the respondents.

0.A.No.195/2010 A. Amburose Kulandai Raj, Enforcement officer/Accounts Officer Office of the Regional Prerskident Fund Commissiener EirepioNitee.s P'..TEtrident Fund Organisation Regiarrail Ofefce, Thambaram i

Cf-Ferria 045

Versus

1. The Chairman, Central Board of Trustees, rep. by the Secretary/ The Central provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, Bhikhaji:Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066.

2'.- The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Ernglans Provident Fund Organisation Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan„ New Delhi 110 066.

3. The Regional P.F Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Thambaram 600045.

4. The Regional P.F Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, Tirunelveli 627 011

: Respondents

Rep. by Mr. V. Vijay Shankar, : Counsel for the respondents.

ORDER

(Pronounced by lion'ble Mr. G. Shanthappa, Judicial Member.)

This application has been filed by the applicant under Sec.

19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. After hearing both

parties, this Tribunal vide order dated 26.11.2013, dismissed the

O.A. The order of this Tribunal was challenged by the applicant

by filing W.P. No.10192/2011. The Hon'ble High Court was

pleased to disposed of the matter vide order dated 09.08.2011.

The operative portion of the judgement of the Hon'ble High

Court of Madras reads as under:

"4. Among other grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the petitioner has aised a valid ground as to the lack of jurisdiction of the Regional provident Fund Commissioner -II

Southern Regional Office, Coimbatore and the Central provident Fund Commissioner as appointing authority for issuing the charge memo and imposition of penalty in paragraph 8 (a) of the memorandum of Grounds in the application. Though the respondents had contended that the authority competent to issue the charge memo and to impose

K.C1;1-0 .

penalty have alone initiated action and imposed punishment and therefore, there was no illegality In the proceedings, when we went through the order of the Tribmial, on the vital Issue as to the jurisdiction of the authority who intated the disciplinary proceedings, though raised by the petitioner rind countered by the respondents, there is no discussion on the same and consequently there is no finVgs. This being the question of jurisdiction, we ape inclined to allow this writ petition only for I:t4 purpose of consideration on the above question of law. in the event the Tribunal Comes to the conclusion I that the authorities who had issued the charge memo and impose the ;punishment are competent , the order on factual aspect wilt stand as It

2. As per the above directions of the Hon'ble High Court of

Madras, we have heard the learned counsel from either side.

Perused the pleadings available on record.

3. The short clu.estich to be decided by this Tribustal is the

legal issued involved - in the present 0.A

i.e.. (I) Whether the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner II Southern Regionol Office, Coimbatore and (ii)

the Central Provident Fund Commissioner are the competent

authority to issue the charge memo and to Impose the penalty

on the applicant.

4. Admitl"edly, the Regienai Provident Fund Commissioner iI

Co i mbature- has , issued.- the chard & memo-dated Gs.. ta. 2003 _ The..

impugned. dated 22.12.2EM8( Annex,. A/7) was issued: by

the Appellate Authority, i.e. Chair person, EC CBT„ EPF, New

Delhi.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that

the respondent, i.e. the Regional Provident Commissioner, II,

Coimbatore is not the competent authority and fm has no

futrisflitterr to initiate disciTilinary proceedings against

4

applicant. The respondents No. 2 & 3 by invoking their

O. disciplinary jurisdiction have violated the Act and the scheme

while Issuing the charge memo and the penalty order. In

support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant

relied on a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated

20.05.2011 rendered in the case of Rangku Dutta Ranjan

Kumar Dutta vs. State of Assam [ Criminal Appeal no.

2307/2009]

6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that

according to the Employees Provident Fund Staff [Classificatfon,

Control & Appeal] Rules, 1971, the respondents 3 & 4 are the

competent authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings and

issue the charge memo dated 08.10.2003 and the Central

Provident Fund Commissioner has got the jurisdiction to issue

order imposing penalty of compulsory retirement on the

applicant vide order dated 04.10.2005. Departmental

proceedings were initiated against the applicant by the Regional

Provident Fund Commissioner II Coimbatore and the final order

was passed by the competent authority in his capacity as

Disciplinary Authority. It is well settled law that initiation of

departmental proceedings can be made by the authority lower

than the appointing authority and there is no violation of any

rules in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the applicant

for certain misconducts alleged to have been committed by him.

support of his contention, the learned counsel for the

§)

fr respondents relied on the schedule and also The employees

Provident Fund Staff [ Classification, Control, & Appeal ] Rules,

1971, particularly on Rule & - Disciplinary Authorities, Rule- 9 -

Authority to institute proceedings and Rule /0- Procedure fer i.

imposing major penalties.

7. We have carefully considered the submissions of either

sides and also the directions of the Hon:ble High Court of

Madras. According to the facts narrated above, we have to

apply the ruie.,00stldon of the Erapieyees Provident Fund- Staff'

await-math:la, Control & Blppealll RuleS, 19071 ( herein after

referred to as Rules IStri). The applifeant is workirril- as

Enforcement,/ Accounts Offteer, *Itch Is a Group B post l T the

office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office,

Madura'.

8. Now we shall advert to the Rules 1971. Rule 2 (0 relates

. k140.0.1444.$ Eu.1010FW

'Appointing Authority in-Walton to: ani employee insane- (I) the authority , empowered to make appciintmenesais the

grade in vatiich the emplepee is far the thrielteleg . included, or

(ii) the authority empowered' to make appointment to the post which the employee for the time being holds, or

(iii) the authority which appointed the employee to such grade or post, as the case may be;

(iv) Where the employee, having been substantively appointed to a grade, having held a permanent post has been in continuous employment of Central Board, the authority which appointed him to that grade or post ; which ever is the hignest authority;

Rule. 2 (gt) real. as: under

...---* orr:, i 1 /7 7 : . 'Disciplinary he mune the authority- competent UMW these • ). .. 1

e• rules to twriposever- as einpisgar an oP the penalties , specified in rule/ „:...-• ....

.i.

... 4 l

-

1

- . • • • . j,

6

Part V deals with Penalties and Disciplinary Authority. O.

Rule 7 relates to penaltis. Sub rule (v) to .(ix) relates to

'major penalties'

Major Penalties.

" (v) * Save as provided for in clause (iii) (a reduction to a loWer stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the employee will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the exp9irty of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future Increments of his pay;

(vi) Reduction to a lower time scale pay, grade or post which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the employee to the time scale of pay, grade or post from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding conditions of the restoration to that grade or post from which the employee was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade or post;

(vii) Compulsory retirement. (viii) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for

future employment under the Central Board. (ix) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a

disqualification for future employment under the Central Board.

• Inserted vide notification no. P-IV/2(6)/84/CCA dated 11.11.93

Rule 8 relates to Disciplinary Authorities.

(1) The Central Govt. may impose any of the penalties specified in rule 7 on an employee.

(2) The Central Board may impose any of the penalties specified in rule 7 on any employee for whom the Central Board is the appointing authority under Section 5(D) (3) of the Act.

(3) With out prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1) (2) the appointing authority or authority specified in the Schedule to this rule , may impose any of the penalties specified in rule 7 on any employee to the extent specified In the Schedule.

Rule 9 relates to Authority to Institute Proceedings:-

(1) The Central Government may- (a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any

employee; (b) direct disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary

proceedings against any employee to whom that disciplinary authority is competent to impose under these rules any of the penalties specified in rule 7.

(2) The Central Board may-

. institute disciplinary proceeding against any employee for whom it Is the appointing authority under sub-section 3 of Section 5 (D) of the Act;

(a)

•

(b) direct disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any employee to whom the Central Board is the appointing authority provided that such authority Is competent to Impose any or the pennies on that employee under rule 7

(3)Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-rule (2Q a disciplinarrauthority competent underthese rules to impose any of the penalties speciffed in clauses. (I) to (14 of rule 7 may institute disciplinary proceedings against an employee for imposition of any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 7 notwithstandi9ng that such disciplinary authority is not competent under those rules to impose any of the latter penalties.

EMPLOLYEES' PROVJDENT FUND ORGANISATION SLERVICE SCHEDULE UNDER RULE 7 OF EPF STAFF (CCA) RULES 1971,

S.No. Description of service

Appointing Authority (vide Rule 5)

Authority competent to impose penalties & penalties which, it maw impose ( with reference to item numbers in rule 7 &

I Appellate authority

: ( vide Rule ; 20)

____I

. .

_:,, :,. 8

i alintWat ......iLIfe .

1. 2. • r3 ' Xxx

4. 5.

Xxx xxx b. Xxx :I Renional Office

r 2. GrousLC Xxx Xxx xxx Xxx 3. Group 'B' . RPFC in RPFC in All (both Addl.

Stenographer Gr.I charge of Charge CPFC( for the Minor minor

Personal Asstt Reston et ty*. 6' 10.1004s) (Rego. Otrice) flicisp (mite ( for •

Enforcement

•

CPFC

I !MOW) Miler': *.• ' penalties),

Mk:eV Chairman Asstt. Acctts. (I) CPFC All (both CBT Officer. Minor

& CPFC

Major)

(ii)RPFC Minor In charge (i) to

(iv) Of the of Rule

1 RtuNfaRiSRO

9. We have thorougisty examined the facts of this case.

Admittedly, one of the major penalties i.e. compulsory

477. int ••,‘

.3' \

retirement, was imposed on the applicant vide order dated

• 04.10.2005 issued by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner.

The said order was challenged before the Appellate Authority.

The Appellate Authority, in exercise of power vested with him

under Rule 20 (1) (a) of the EPF Staff ( CCA) Rules, 1971,

modified the penalty of "compulsory retirement" to that of "

Reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale of pay of Rs.

5500-175-9000 (pre-revised) for a period of three years with the

direction that Shrl Kaleel will not earn Increment of pay during

the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the

reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments

of pay the period of his absence from duty shall be treated as

'Dies-non i.e. No duty" and orders accordingly. Charge memo

was issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II,

Colmbatore, who is sub-ordinate to Central Provident Fund

Commissioner. The contention of the applicant that the Regional

Provident Fund Commissioner II, Coimbatore is neither the

appointing authority nor the Disciplinary Authority and he has no

power to issue the charge memo.

10. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondents

submits that according to the Schedule and the rule, the

competent authority has issued the memorandum of charges

and the Disciplinary Authority has decided the disciplinary

proceedings and passed the order of compulsory retirement.

The Appellate Authority has exercised his power and decided

that there is no error of jurisdiction while deciding the appeal.

11. We have also considered the rule position as extracted

above!• While arguing the cafe, the learned counsel for the

applicant has contended that RPFC II,Coimbatore is not the

appointing authority or the Disciplinary Authority. It is seen that

the applicant has not challenged the Employees Provident

Fund ( Staff • Conditions of Service ) Regulations 1962

(as amended upto 31 st August 1.992). Applicant is a Group B

Officer. Employees Provident Fund ( Staff & Conditions of

Semite ) Regutatinns, 1962 are applicable to larrial ayees of PF

OrgLInisti ,..n. Regulation 27 cl?.als with conduct of employees.

Regulation 27 .A is Classificat:::n, Control, & Appeal reads as

under:

'' The Employees of tie iarci n isa ti on shaft be governed by the Employees Provideat Fusrrd Ceissification, Control Appeal) rules,. 1971 as amended from time to time.

/2. The learned cotsrtseli• for the applicant canterrele(ktirat sire

the delegation by the Central- Beard of Trustees to-th• RPFC IiI

and also the Central Provident Fund Commissioner has not

issued the charge memo, the orders passed by the said

authorities is illegal, null and void.

13. According to 5D of the EPF and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952,

tkve Central Government s'asti appoint a Central, Provident Fund

7---

Commissioner, vine: sb ail. be the chief executive offiser cif the /' ■ d.'"

c ' 4.

Risr . •-• ,

7:. .

'‘ • . 7*

- 4

C r • •

et-12 0.2

10

Central Board and shall be subject to the general control and

'superintendence of that Board.;

14. The applicant is Enforcement Officer/Assistant Accounts

Officer which is a Group B non-gazetted post for which the

Central Provident Fund Commissioner is the appointing

authority. The memorandum of charges was issued by the RPFC

II; Coimbatore.

15. We would like to refer to EPF (Classification, Control,

appeal) Rules, 1971 which are extracted above. Compulsory

retirement is one of the major penalties specified in part-V

Penalties, which was imposed by the Central Provident Fund

Commissioner. The applicant, who is presently working as

Enforcement Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer, which is Group B

non-gazetted post, admits that Central Provident Fund

Commissioner is the appointing authority for his grade.

16.In respect of imposition of penalties the appointing

authority is competent to impose major penalty. According to

Rule 8(3) of EPF Staff ( Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,

1971

"With out prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1) (2) the appointing authority or authority specified In the Schedule to this rule , may Impose

;;,i/ In rf.) 1,e 7 •yr ■ ;,,try kfticifrilk*tO thq, k/.Merit

specified in the Schedule."

Rule 9 deals with the authority to institute'proceedings.

17. According to the Schedule, extracted above, CPFC is the

appointing authority and he can impose all (both major and

minor) penalties and the Appellate Authority is the Chairman,

Central Board of Trustees., EPF.

IS. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the

considered view that the authority who had issued the

memorandum of charges, and the authority who had imposed

the major penalties and the authority decided the appeal, are

the competent authorities under EPF (CCA) Rules, 1971. Hence

there is no force in the contention of the applicant that

delegation of power from the CBT is necessary to impose

punishment on the applicant.

19. We are of the considered view that there is no error of

jurisdiction in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the

applicant, the Central Provident fund Commissioner is the

competent authority to impose penalty and the Chairman, CBT is

the competent authority to decide the appeal: The applicant has

failed to establish his contention that the entire proceed 13c1 gs are

vitiated for want of jurisdiction by the authorities in initiating the

disciplinary proceedings. On the contrary, the respondents have

justified their action in initiating disciplinary proceedings,

imposing penalties which have been done by the competent

alit ho rites

12

20. Accordingly we have crcided the' questionof jurisdiction

and the powers of RPFC II Southern Regional Office, Coimbatore S .

and the Chief Provident Fund Commissioner In initiating the

. disciplinary proceedings issuing charge memo and imposing

penalties on the applicant , as directed by the Hon'ble High Court

of Madras in W.P. No10192/2011 vide its judgement dated

09.08.2011. We hold that the said authorities are competent

authorities under the rules.

21. It is pertinent to quote the relevant observation of the

Hon'ble High Court in para 4 of the judgement dated 09.08.2011

in W.P. NO. 10192/2011, which reads asunder:

.This being the question of jurisdiction, we are inclined to allow this writ petition only for the purpose of consideration on the above question of law. In the event the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the authorities who had Issued the charge memo and Impose the punishment are competent, the order on factual aspect will stand as it is."

22. As we hold that the authorities are competent to issue the

charge memo and impose punishment, the order dated

26.11.2010 passed by this Tribunal earlier, on factual aspect will

stand as it is, as observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.

23. Ordered accordingly. No costs.

ORDERS ON 0.A.No. 195/2010

The above O.A has been filed under Sec. 19 of the

Administrative 'Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the legality and

propriepty seeking the follawin:j

"1.- That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order No.0 11016/11/2009 SS-ldated 11.08.2009, passed by secretary ( Labour Employment ) & Chairperson, Executive Committee, CBT EPF, by treating the same as illegal based on void charge memo and proceedings.

2. To declare that the responnts 2 & 4 have misused their authority by assuming the jurisdiction of the Appointing Authority while issuing the charge memo and penalty order respectively by not adhering to the- provisions of the Act.

3. To grant the salary & irrcrements. due to, the applicant treating as though pueisiriment was no lrt existerrce and. to pay arreass: of salary along with Interest of min. 18% per annum. as.„ applicable under the Act., as his salary is not being paid front the government exchequer.

4. To grant alt other service- benefits and count the two , years service for tie purposes-crf' I ncvemeat, senior: promotions esz.

We have heard the learned counsel from either side. The

legal issues involved in this O.A are similar to that of the legal

issues raised in O.A. No. 1064/2009. We have already held that

the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Central

Provident Fund: Commissioner, Chairman,. Central Board of

Trustees are the competent authorities to issue charge memo,

impugned penalty order and the order on appeal respectively.'

3. In the present O.A we have to decide whether: the

procedure followed during the inquiry and the orders passed by

the- authorities are in accerdance with the rules..

1 11'7 1 ‘ti'\.:X

C4 • '

4. The factual matrix of the case are that the applicant is

presently working as an Enforcement Officer. While he was

working as such, he was served with a charge memo dated

25.04.2005 along with articles of Charge, imputations of

misconduct, list of documents and list of witnesses. The said

charge memo was issued by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner-II, Tirunelveli. The charges levelled against the

applicant are as under:

" Arlisk.I. The applicant while functioning as AAO SRO, Tirunelveli during the period 2004-2005 was found guilty of acts amounting to gross misconduct as much as he absented himself unauthorized from

duty from 08.05.2004 and continued to remain so.

Article II. That he is alleged to have not appeared before the

medical board at Kanyakumarl Medical College Hospital for 2 nd medical

opinion when directed to do so. .

5. The applicant denied the charges, vide his letter dated

27.07.2005, the Disciplinary Authority appointed the Inquiry

Officer and Presenting Officer. After conducting the inquiry, the

Inquiry Officer, submitted his report on 24.01.2006. The finding

of the Inquiry Officer was that Article I 'as proved' and Article II

as ' not proved'. Vide letter dated 08.02.2006, the applicant was

afforded an opportunity to make representation and the

applicant submitted his representation dated 03.03.2006. After

careful consideration of the Inquiry report and the representation

of the applicant dated 03.03.2006, thc. Disciplinary Authority

vide order dated 03.12.2007 has imposed a penalty of

withholding two Increments of pay for a period of two ye ,ars

cry jr lyLi klOgrip,

t Sgf.

without cumulative effect. Thereafter the applicant preferred an

appeal to appellate authority i.e. to the Secretary/Chairman •

ExectitIve Committme, Central. Board of Trustees,. EPF

Org4tisation, challenging the order of the Disciplinary Authority.

The Appellate Authority, exercising his powers under Rule 20 (1)

(a) of the Employees Provident Fund Staff (Classification, Control

& Appeal) Rules, 1971, rejected the appeal vide order dated

11.08.2009. Thereafter the applicant preferred a revision

petition on 17.11.2110% challenging the orders at the Appellate

Authority. S'ubsequently ‘ the applicant has frted the present 014,

challenging the orders of the Disciplinary•Awtherity and Appellate

Authority as Illegal. Sec. 5D (3) of EPF and Misc. Provisions Act,

1952 reads as under:

" Sec. 5 D (3)

The Central Board may, appoint as many Additional

Central Provident Fund Commissioners, Deputy Provident Fund Commissioners, Regional. Provident Fund Commissioners, Assisrant Provident Fund Corrrnissioners and such other officers and ernigeyees

as it .y.a.v‘ carrsiid er ne:essary

The applicant contends that Sec. 5 D has not provided for

delegation of power in favour any other authority to exercise

powers of the Central Board of Trustees. The 3rd respondent Is

not the appointing authority of the applicant and therefore the

Charge Memo dated 25_04_20(15 , initiating disciplinary

proceedings against' the applicant under Rule 10 of CPF (0E4

Rules, 1971, is non-est in the eye of taw and the pro

16

major penalty proceeding,_ under clause (v) to clause (ix)of Rule

7. He further contended that the 3 rd respondent is in-charge of

Sib Regional Office Tirunelvell and he stood at SI. No. 5 in the

hierarchy. The applicant further stated that the service

conditions and discipline of the applicant is governed by

" 1. The EPF & MP Act, 1952 herein after called as Act.

2. The EPF Scheme 1952 herein after called as scheme-

Statutory Rule.

3. The EPF (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation

1962- herein after called Regulation -non statutory.

4. The EPF Staff (CCA) Rule 1971 herein after called as

Rule I- Non-statutorY.

6. It is averred by the applicant that the Central Board is the

Appointing Authority u/s 5D(3) of tile Act and the Central Board

is the Disciplinary Authority u/s 5D(7) of the Act; the Central

P.F. Commissioner is the Appointing Authority as per annexure

to Regulation 5; the Chairman Central Board is the appointing

authority under para 24 A (2) of the Scheme and the Central P.F

Commissioner is the Appointing Authority and Distiplinary

Authority as per Schedule to Rule 7 and Rule 8 (2) & (5). It is

further averred that Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II In

charge of Sub "Regional Office Tirunelveli is under the control of

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I of Tamil Nadu Region

and RPFC had invoked Rule 10 of EPF Staff (CCA) Rule, who is 07 1,

• -

not empowered under the Act or Scheme and as such, the

authority who acted as Disciplinary Authority had not been

"clothed- with such power under the Act or Scheme, which goes to

prove that the action of the 4 th respondent was matafide.

Therefore the issuance of charge memo, appointment of inquiry

officer, presenting officer done by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner have become illegal. A great prejudice had been

caused to the applicant for the reason that had the matter been

piaced before the CPFC, who. is the competent auttority te,

initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, he may or

may not have issued the charge memo. Hence the punishment

imposed vide order dated 03.12.2(27 by the Disdplinary

Authority is illegal and against law. It is contended by the

applicant that Rule 10 invoked by the 3 rd respondent in initiating

the disciplinary proceeding under the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules Is

against the provision of the Act and the scheme framed

thereunder. A lower a.u.thasity to eltercise the disdolinaw

jurisdiction other than to whom it was vested with the

disciplinary power causes prejudice and bias to the applicant.

The applicant questions whether the Chairman who had been

delegated with power by the Central Board of Trustees under

para 24 A (2) of the Scheme could re-delegate to CPFC and

further to RPFC 1 and finther to RPFC 11 in chaise- of SRO. Thus

the !miner exercised by the CPFC and RPFC ir finger tine ROI Se

,

in excess to the power conferred under the Act arid sc ir7- •

i •

$ • , •. • ' : • . • pr

'• t ..

; • • 4-f

‘* •; ">1 xos

.4

.`• •

1

{-) • '

. (-) . •

condition necessary for exercise of power existed under the

ACtischeme have been swayed by an extraneous cause. Hence •

the impugned orders are Illegal and liable to be quashed.

7. Per contra, the respondents have filed a detailed reply

statement denying the averments made in the 0.A and admitted

the facts based on record. The Disciplinary proceedings are

initiated against the applicant under Rule 10- of Employees

Provident Fund Staff ( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

1971 by RPFC II Tirunelvell vide memo dated 25.04.2005. The

applicant has denied the charges. In accordance with the

dov.'n under Employees Provident Fund Staff

(CCA) Rules, 1971, an indult/ wes conducted. The inquiry

officer submitted his report on 24.01.20.06 holding that the

charge no. 1 as proved and charge No. 2 as not proved. The

applicant was afforded an opportunity of hearing and to make

his representation to the inquiry report. Accordingly, the

applicant submitted his representation on 03.03.2006.

8. The Disciplinary Authority after consideration of the case

based on records and the inquiry officer's report and the

representation of the applicant dated 03.03.2006, has imposed a

penalty of withholding two increments for a period of two years

without cumulative effect. The applicant preferred an appeal

ainst the said order which was considered by the appropriate ",.\

ZG*\ r.sy

•

. •

t rA

authority i.e. Secretary/Chairman Executive Committee, Central

..Board of Trustees and the said appeal was rejected. The charge

sheet dated 25.04.2005 was sent to the applicant but the same

returned with the postai reniart:s that 'Absent'. A notice was also

published in the news paper informing that if the appliCant

wanted to submit amrapplication, he may appear before the

RPFC. When the applicant joined duty on 18.07.2005, the

charge sheet was served on him on the same day. As per Sgb

Ruk 3 of Rule 9 of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971, an authority

competent. to impose - a minor penalty can initiate disciplinary

proceedings for major penalty. As the authority competent to

impose minor penalty in the (.7;.: . e of the applicant is RPEC,.officer

in charge and hence he was well its jurisdiction as per Sub

Rule 3 of Rule 9 of EPF Staff (CCA) Rules 1971, while issuing. the

charge sheet to the applicant for major penalt#. It is further

submitted that the authority competent - to impose major penalty

in the case of applicant is. the CPFC viz.. The Central , Ptoviiilerit

Fund Commissioner. It is the CPFC who considered the records

of inquiry and facts and circumstances of the case and imposed

penalty on the applicant. It is therefore obvious that no injustice

has been committed to the applicant and he is only trying to

a6uscate the matter at this belated stage.

9. The appellate authority has disposed of the appeal cl9tOok PA1, 1„,,

16.01.2008 as directed by this Tribunal vide its order in 0;.A-:. r.

.. - - • T . • : .9. .:.:,;,

.4 ....._ • ;

;:::....0 , .......--- . i s... • . ;-.0 ;I:.

."— :.v..,' ..'.. •••• ;.;

\ '.%-, $ - —. - • . - -,•!>';' 0. ■,, 4. , 1 ' : .%. ,.;:

. ....lias,- :■••-•":"...: - / ,

• ; :.:. .....-.

815/2008 within the stipulated period. The said appeal was

decided on 11.08.2008. The applicant has not filed any review

application as claimed by the applicant and he has not filed any

proof in support of the sarrie. No such review was received by

the- department. The applicant has not raised any jurisdiction

issue at any point of time earlier. • The applicant had

participated in the inquiry without any protest at any point of

time.

10. RPFC II in charge of Tirunelveli was well within the

jurisdiction to issue charge sheet to the applicant. The penalty

was imposed by the CPFC who is competent to impose. such

punishment. There is no violation of any rule or procedure as

alleged by the applicant. The judgement of the Jodhpur Bench

of this Tribunal, relied on by the applicant has no relevance to

the facts of this case. The penalty imposed was no

disoroportionate to charges levelled against the applicant so as

to require the interference of this Tribunal.

11. While arguing the case, the learned counsel for the

respondents submitted that there is no error of procedure and

the competent authority had Initiated the proceedings and the

Dis;iplinary Authority has imposed the penalty as per the

Schedule of The EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971.

12. We have carefully consid:ftrecl the submissions of the

itkarned counsel from either side and perused the records and

pleadings carefully. We havelready Upheld the competence

of Issuing charge memo anc: p.owers exercised by the

Disciplinary Authority in imposing the penalty and the Appellate

Authority in deciding the appeal. As contended by the applicant

he had filed a revision petition to the re.visional authority. He

produced a, copy of such review petition. The respondents in

the reply have denied that they have received any such revision

er - rebutting . the petition. The applicant has not filed - any. relairit

above averment of the respondents in the reply by filing

Tne ',>;.2b7r1ISSIOT1E. the re,s-poncients go to sho.0 the

•

applicant has not flied any m ,.visio:). petition. The applicant' has

not produced any proof to the effect that he has filed revision

petition. -tence , we have cc,;-cs;dered that the applicant has not

Filed -any revision - petition.

13. Ir. respect of procedural aspect; the applicant. %raw. served.

with a charge memo dated 25.04.2005, which was issued by

RPFC ThE~ applicant submitted his repreSentation

denying the charges vide his letter dated 27.07.2005. The

applicant was given iibe.rty. to participate in the inquiry. The

applicant was given amp te opportunity In the inwint,. he did not

raise objection. The appticanr. was ailowed to_.-cross exzraine the

witnesses and he was given afl opportunity to examine. himself

1 A 0 Pr)

O

and his witnesses. Hence the inquiry officer has not violated the

procedure of inquiry. The inquiry officer submitted his finding

that charge I as proved and charge II as not proved. A copy of

the inquiry report was supplied to the applicant. The applicant

submitted his representation to the inquiry officer's report. The

Disciplinary Authority, after careful consideration of the charge

memo, representation to the charge memo, the inquiry officer's

report and the representation of the applicant against the charge

memo exercising his power vested under Rule 8 of EPF Staff

(CCA) Rules, 1971, imposed the penalty of withholding an

increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect.

The principles of natural justice has been followed. The

procedure adopted by the a.:thorities goes to show that the

authorities• have followed the procedure as per EPF Staff (CCA)

Rules, 1971. A reading of the representation to the inquiry

• report shows that the applicant did not raise any objection with

regard to the procedure followed during the inquiry.

14. We are of the considered view that the procedure adopted

by the inquiry officer, disciplinary authority are in accordance

with the rules EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971. The applicant had

challenged the order of the. Disciplinary Authority before the

Appellate Authority,„ vide his, appeal dated 16.01.2008. The

Appellate Authority has considered the grounds of appeal and

• •

tkeifcrsed his powers vested under Rule 20 1 (a) of EPF Staff

(C.CA) Rules, 1971 and assigned reasons for dismissing the

appeal.

'Free Cr•ry Ti/R 22 co r

CA1 -resk:eiture) Rules"

/TRUE r@lifY/

t2it t, DEPOT` ac C IST R A

15. We have carefully gone through order passed by the

Appellate Authority. We are of tho considered view that the

Appellate Authority has passed a reasoned order. The

contention of the applicant that the impugned orders are illegal

and against law has no force. The respondents have justified in

their reply statement and also during the arguments that the

competent authority has issued the charge memo, imposed the

penalty and the appeal has been :lecided by the competent

authority. We are of the considered view that there Is no

deViation of procedure mentioned in EPF Staff CCCA1 Rules,

1971.

16. The applicant has failed to establish his case for grant of

reliefs as prayed for. The respondents have justified their action

In imposing penalty and eitsmissing the appeal. Accerdingly,

there is no merit in this application and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

17. Accordingly, the 0.A No 195/?.010 is dismissed. No order

as to costs: --;

Your

(A KALEELUR AN) ST. P.F. COMMISS ONtR(ADM)

- •

End: As above

_

f4. Tra-ctku 31-Tr1ir

10\

5 ?3y

Misr / Tele.: 044-28132700

/ Fax : 044-28132188

RR*/ Telegram : PittsTeit/ Bhavishyanidhi'

ci'41 d I Ocri / EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION ( Kr-4' t7w1T-4- 4-1:41esei. / MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT. GOVT. OF INDIA)

#4171" civvi-thc+4 I Regional Office

3.7 , wzr■tgr , t-42 — 600' 014 / 37, Royapettah High Road, Chennai — 600 014

No.TN/Adm.I/CAT/0A-1064/09'/WP-10192/2011 Dated: 09/12/2011

COURT CASE

To URGENT

The Central P.F. Commissioner* NEW DELHI.

Stitt: OA-1054/20GS Med•by Shri C i Kaleet before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Trfbuna Madras Bench - Regarding.

Sir,

Please refer to this office letter of even number dated 29.09.2011 on the above subject.

A copy of the letter dated 01.11.2011 received from our Panel Counsel in respect of the 0.A No.1064/2009 is forwarded herewith which is self explanatory. The main contention raised by the applicant in the OA that in terms of Section 5(D)(3), that "only Central Board is con :relent to appoint avvident -Commissioners and other officers and that exercise of the power by other afters is witimut jurisclictiam" Hence, the Panel CGLIFTS6 has- required wife darificatio irt regard to vottether in+ terr r~s of Secirion with pare 22(A) and AO) of the-Scheme the Centra' Btard frac J'sgated4 - fts.power to amt other authority.

As per the Schedule of Administrative and Financial Powers, the CPFC has been delegated with full powers to make appointment to all Group-B posts and Group-A posts of APFC. In this connection, it is requested to convey the concurrence to communicate the

above provision to our Standing Counsel to defend the case. Further, the documentary proof showing the above delegation of power in the form of letter or notification may kindly :

be forwarded to this office. The case is posted for further hearing on 04.01.2012.

(This issues with. the approval of RPFC-I)

t. / Email : ro.chennai@epfindia.gov . in

ANeb site : www.epfochennai.tn.nic.in

Residence : New No.36 Old No.14, ' Mahatma Gandhi Road, Shastri Nagar, Chennai - 600 041.

: 24522037 / 24523651

VLIAY SHANNAR, B.A.. B L . ADVOCATE

7 67, Law Chambers, „v Court, High Cou, I) Chennai - 600 104.

9) ;1

Phone : 25342014

Date :

Dated 1.11.2011

To

The Regional Provident Fund Cdmmissioner Chennai.

Sir,

Sutc-OA 1064/2009 filed by C.R.Kaleel **-*

1- din W. . P10192/201 I came up today befbre the CAT, Chennai Bench . The

) The above matter , after remand by the High Court in

k ' '

matter was argued for quite some time. As you are aware, the remand by the High Court was only

limited to deciding the question of jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority in issuing charge _sheet and in imposing 1 the order of punishment. As per the order df the High t all Court,. ohersues is. le ...____ _.....- ,—

.--------- ----- attain finality. The Tribunal heard. the matter for some time and wanted me.

I -7 ,---t l ' alv.t .- to clarify whether in terms of section 5(D) and 5(E) of the EFT Act , the,

,( Central Board had delegated the power to any other authority /officer.

The only contention raised by the applicant is that in terms of Section (D)( 5(0 (;)

3) , the only Central Board is Competem to appoint Provident Fund

Commissioners and other officers and that exercise of the power by other officerS is without jurisdiction. The Tribunal wanted me to specifically

clarify whether in terms -'of Section 5(E) read with clause 22 (A) and

24(A) of the Scheme , the Central 1.30ard had delegated its power to any

other authority. Since this issue is frequently being raised in different

forums by some of the parties (applicants), I request you to obtain suitable

instruction/clarificatiop , if necessary from the Central Board itself. The •

matter is-. part heard and stands posted for further. hearing on 7.12.2011.

Since there is sufficient time I request you to get the necessary clarification well in advance so that a discussion can be had before presenting the same

in the Tribunal. •

Yours faithfully,

AdvOcate. .