Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
B.S. Jarial S/O Late Shri G.S. Jarial vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 28 August, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No.-4261/2013
MA No.1548/2015
Order Reserved on 07.05.2015
Order Pronounced on: 28.08.2015
Honble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A)
Honble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
B.S. Jarial S/o Late Shri G.S. Jarial
Working as Dy. Sypdt., Grade-1,
In Central Jail, Tihar & R/o 696,
Type-V, New Residential Complex
Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi-110064.
-Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.C. Luthra)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
Chief Secretary
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
2. The Director General of Prisons, Delhi
Prisons Headquarters,
Near Lajwanti Garden Chowk
Janakpuri, New Delhi-110064. -Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Ritika Chawla)
O R D E R
Per Sudhir Kumar, Member (A):
On the date of filing of this OA on 05.12.2013, the applicant of this case was working as Deputy Superintendent Grade-I in Central Jail, Tihar. He has approached this Tribunal assailing the issuance of the Charge-Sheet through the Memorandum dated 22.10.2013 in respect of a common departmental proceedings against him, along with another Deputy Superintendent of the Central Jail, Tihar, Shri Subhash Sharma, and Assistant Superintendent of Central Jail, Tihar, Shri Jitender Bhargava, for holding a joint Disciplinary Enquiry (DE, in short) against the three of them together.
2. The case was first heard and reserved for orders on 20.04.2015. Just four days thereafter, on 24.04.2015, in the open Court, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to inadvertence he could not file some very relevant documents regarding disposal of some other relevant cases by the superior Courts, and prayed that the order in the matter should not be pronounced, and the same may be listed once again under the heading For Being Spoken to. His specific request made in the open Court was accepted, and the matter was ordered to be listed again For Being Spoken to, on 07.05.2015, further heard on that date, and again reserved for orders, after the learned counsel had filed a voluminous bunch of further papers on which he relied upon.
3. The applicant has impugned the Charge Sheet on the following preliminary grounds:-
i) That it has been issued in violation of Rule 12,15,16 & 36 of Delhi Prison (Transfer of Prisoners, Labour & Jail, Industry, Food, Clothing & Sanitation) Rules, 1988, and;
ii) On the basis of inordinate delay; and;
iii) Incompetence of Disciplinary Authority; and;
iv) Inapplicability of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, claiming that he was governed by the Punjab Jail Department Executive Staff (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1943, where the Disciplinary Authority is the State Govt./Lt. Governor of GNCTD, and not the Chief Secretary of the State.
4. The applicant has also submitted that he was impugning the Charge Sheet in terms of the liberty granted to him by the Honble Delhi High Court as long back as on 26.05.2009, i.e., more than four & a half years prior to filing of the OA. Yet the applicant claimed that the present OA is within the period of limitation, and that he has also submitted a representation praying for the disciplinary proceedings to be dropped, but as the matter is urgent, he has to take recourse of filing the present OA.
5. In order to try to show that the Charge Sheet issued was void ab initio, and deserves to be stuck down, the applicant has submitted that the alleged misconduct is of the year 2003. An enquiry was thereafter conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance) Delhi High Court, which was concluded on 08.06.2007, but the respondents did not take any follow up action afterwards, sent the draft Charge Sheet to the Directorate of Vigilance only on 17.02.2009, and 04 years 9 months thereafter, the Charge Sheet has been served upon him, in which, according to the applicant, there is no explanation for the delay.
6. The applicant had filed MA No.1548/2013 on 28.04.2015 enclosing a copy of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.778/2006 R.D. Bohet vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., to claim that he is governed by Punjab Jails Department Executive Staff (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1943, and not by CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is seen that in that OA No.778/2006, a Coordinate Bench had noticed that even after the Punjab Rules had been repealed, and Delhi Prisons Act had come into being, yet for want of any Rules framed thereunder, to govern such a situation of the type which was before consideration of the Coordinate Bench, it had been held that in such a situation, the Rules of Punjab Jails would have applicability, and would have to be applied. We would be bound to follow that ratio, if the facts of the present case are on all fours with that earlier case.
7. Thereafter, the applicant had sought shelter behind Section 54 of the Prisons Act, 1894, and stated that that Act was not available to the respondents for being applied, due to limitation. Thereafter, in Para 4.1.5 of his O.A. the applicant had submitted that the liberty as granted to his co-delinquent in the present enquiry, Shri Subhash Sharma, by the Honble Delhi High Court in MA No.6123/2009 (Stay) dated 26.05.2009 in Crl. Appeal No.257/2004, would apply to his case also, though the Honble High Courts order did not mention his name anywhere, and he was not a party in that case before the Honble Delhi High Court.
8. The further preliminary ground taken by the applicant was that he had given a reply to the Show Cause Notice issued by DG (Prisons) dated 11.02.2008, and had also given a representation to the Chief Secretary dated 09.06.2009, but they had not rebutted his submissions contained in those two documents, and are now estopped by acquiescence to issue a Charge Sheet after a lapse of four years and nine months. It was further submitted that the applicant had legitimate expectations that the respondents had accepted his contentions as made in those two representations, and had dropped the disciplinary proceedings.
FACTS OF THE CASE
9. The facts of this case actually lie in a very narrow compass. At the relevant time in 2003, the applicant was working as Dy. Superintendent Grade-I and officiating as Superintendent in Central Jail No.4 of Tihar Jails, New Delhi. A prisoner Jaswant Singh was lodged in Central Jail No.4 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, along with a fine, as ordered by the Court on 28.11.2003, in a case arising from Police Station Punjabi Bagh. The same prisoner was also facing trial in four cases of Police Station, Ghaziabad (UP) also.
10. On receipt of Production Warrants (PWs) on 29.12.2003 for production of the said accused before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, to face trial in respect of the above said four pending cases there. He was sent for production before Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, along with all the conviction details of the Delhi case, and remission sheet, contained in a 23 pages file, along with transfer form (Challan Slip), with instructions having been given to the In-charge of the Police escort party sent from Delhi that the accused shall be brought back to the Tihar Jail after his production at Ghaziabad Court, which authority was duly received and acknowledged by Delhi Armed Police Bn. escort party in-charge. As the said prisoner was already undergoing sentence in Delhi, he could not at all have been transferred to Ghaziabad once for all, but had only been sent there for production before the Additional Sessions Judge, but, after that days hearing, as per the directions issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, the prisoner was sent to District Jail, Ghaziabad. Thereafter, allegedly there was some manipulation on the part of the Officials of the District Jail, Ghaziabad, and the Court officials of Ghaziabad, who dealt with the case file, having full details of the conviction of the prisoner in the Delhi case, with the result that the said prisoner was finally released from District Jail Ghaziabad on 09.09.2004, resulting in his conviction and sentence at Delhi remaining unexecuted.
11. The applicant has submitted that the prisoner had also preferred an appeal before the Honble Delhi High Court on 27.01.2004 against his conviction, while being in District Jail Ghaziabad, and, thus, it is clear that at the time of filing of that criminal appeal before the Honble Delhi High Court, the said prisoner was lodged in Ghaziabad Jail, and the Jail Authorities of Ghaziabad fully knew about the details of his conviction by Delhi Court.
12. Once the prisoner got released from Ghaziabad Jail, the officials of the Central Jail, Tihar, including the applicant, who were then posted in Jail No.4, were allegedly found responsible for not performing their duties in accordance with law, and the Jail officials of Ghaziabad District Jail as well as the Court officials of Ghaziabad Court, who, according to the applicant, had allegedly manipulated that release, were left untouched from being so charge-sheeted by the Enquiry officer.
13. When the prisoners case came up for hearing, all the facts regarding his appeal came to light before the Honble Delhi High Court, which had then ordered an enquiry on 15.03.2005, which was conducted by Shri R.K. Gauba, Registrar (Vig.) of the Delhi High Court, who submitted his report dated 08.06.2007, the covering letter of which report has been marked by the present applicant as Page-15 of Annexure A-1 of his OA.
14. The applicant is aggrieved that he was duty bound to produce the prisoner before the Ghaziabad Court after receipt of prisoners Production Warrant, and, therefore, no wrong had been committed by him. But, after the enquiry conducted by the Registrar (Vig.) of Delhi High Court, on 23.03.2009, the respondent authorities had submitted the status report to the Honble Delhi High Court, in which it was stated that the Principal Secretary (Home), GNCT of Delhi, had sent a draft Charge Sheet along with recommendations of the Director (Vig.) of the Delhi High Court, and that enquiry proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 had been initiated against the applicant, and the said Shri Subhash Sharma, the then Dy. Superintendent Grade-II. The applicant had thereafter once again relied upon the case of his co-delinquent Subhash Sharma, and the observations of the Honble Delhi High Court dated 26.05.2009 in that case, which judgment and order the applicant has produced as Annexure A-3 (pages 28 to 31 of his OA).
15. When the applicant was issued a Show Cause Notice along with three other officials on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by Shri R.K. Gauba, Registrar (Vig.) of Delhi High Court, the applicant submitted his detailed representation on 11.02.2008 against those findings, quoting from the Delhi Jail Manual Standing Orders, and other Rules, to try to show that this was a case of production and not transfer of prisoner to another Jail. He had further assailed that the report of the Registrar (Vig.) was flawed, because it was in violation of rules of natural justice, and no opportunity of hearing had been granted to him by the said Registrar (Vig.) of Delhi High Court.
16. The applicant has further submitted that the Registrar (Vig.) of Delhi High Court had conducted an enquiry on the basis of inapplicable Rules. It was further alleged by him that he has since learnt that his case has been considered favourably for the post of Jail Superintendent, and these proceedings had been undertaken only in order to thwart his elevation, and to leave him stagnating on the post of Dy. Superintendent Grade-1, which he has occupied for the last 19 years. It was further alleged that the respondents have initiated the proceedings after inordinate delay, caused due to negligence on their part, even after they had lost the mandate on moral grounds as well.
17. The applicant had thereafter specifically stated that he was filing the present OA in view of the liberty given by the Honble Delhi High Court to his co-delinquent Subhash Sharma. He had further submitted that the Charge Sheet was not tenable in view of the observations of the Honble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 354. He had further sought shelter behind the fact that issuance of Charge Sheet, when he was expecting his promotion, that too in a delayed manner, needs a sympathetic consideration.
18. Acknowledging that the Honble Apex Court had held in the case of N. Radhakrishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1988 SCC (L&S) 1044, that normally disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their own course, the applicant had still submitted that delay defeats justice, and causes prejudice to the charged officer, and unless it can be shown that he was to be blamed for the delay, or when there was some proper explanation for delay, then only such a Charge Sheet could have been issued to him.
19. He had further sought shelter behind the Honble Apex Courts judgment in P.V. Mahadevan vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board 2005 SCC (L&S) 861, wherein it has been held that protracted disciplinary proceedings against a Government employee should be avoided in public interest, and also in the interest of inspiring confidence of Govt. employees. He had further sought shelter behind the Honble Apex Court judgment in Ranjit Singh vs. State of Haryana (Civil Appeal No. 1491 2006 dated 30.06.2008), whereby the Charge Sheet was quashed, and penalty was set aside, due to long delay of 9 years in issuance of the Charge Sheet.
20. The applicant had, thereafter, taken the ground of his being governed by the Punjab Jail Rules (supra), stating that he can only be proceeded under Punjab Jail Rules, and not as per CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which are not attracted to him. He had further taken the ground that though, as per Section 54 of the Prisons Act, 1894, violation of any Rule is punishable, and offences by prison subordinates are dealt with, but he had submitted that even that that option was not available to the respondents in the present litigation, due to limitation.
21. The applicant had taken the further ground that the Charge Sheet was void ab initio, and respondents need to be restrained from conducting an enquiry under the Charge Sheet, which was void ab initio, so that time consuming and avoidable exercise and prolonged avoidable litigation could actually be avoided. He had pleaded that this is a fit case for quashing of Charge Sheet. He had further sought shelter behind the decision of this Tribunal in OA No.297/2009 in the case of Chandrika Prasad vs. Secretary. Deptt. of Post Dak Bhawan, New Delhi dated 25.08.2011, in which the delay in issuance of Charge Sheet had been accepted as a valid ground for quashing the Charge Sheet. The applicant had further cited the cases of P.V. Mahadevan vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board (supra) and State of M.P. vs. Bani Singh & Another JT 1990 (2) SC 54.
22. He had assailed the delay in issuance of Charge Sheet to him to be violative of his fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and also being against the principles of natural justice. He had further submitted that since the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, are more stringent in nature as compared to Punjab Jail Rules, an enquiry under Punjab Jail Rules was the only option before the respondents.
23. He had further submitted that two junior level Jail officials, Asstt. Superintendent Sh. Jitender Bhargava, and Warder Shri Prakash Chand, who assisted in the convict section, were directly responsible for safe keeping of convicts, but they had been let off only with administrative warnings, while the applicant and Shri Subhash Sharma had been indicted, even though he was only a supervisory officer, being the Superintendent of the Jail, Central Jail No.4. He had further taken the plea that there had been no misconduct on his part even under Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. He further submitted that even though the Jail staff of Ghaziabad had been reported against by the Registrar (Vig.) of Delhi High Court, but the Government of U.P. had not taken any action against them, which has violated his rights of equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
24. The applicant had further taken the ground that by not replying to his representations, and negating his contentions, it had to be deemed that his contentions had been accepted, and in saying so, the applicant had relied upon the case of State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna and Others (supra). He had also relied upon the ratio laid down by the Honble Apex Court in M/s Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd., vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 354, that proper timely action in accordance with law is essential characteristics of the concept of public accountability.
25. In the result, the applicant had prayed for a single relief, for quashing of the Charge Sheet issued to him on 22.10.2013 by the respondents, and an Interim Relief to stay the operation of the Charge Sheet, by directing the respondents not to proceed with the enquiry in pursuance of the Charge Memo. It is seen that no stay of the DE was ever ordered by this Tribunal, and, therefore, the Interim Relief as prayed for by the applicant was not granted to him.
26. Respondents filed their counter reply on 06.08.2014. In this it was categorically submitted that the applicant is a Delhi Govt. employee, and the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, are fully applicable to him in all respects, and it was incorrect to state that he was governed by Punjab Jail Rules, 1943 (supra). It was further submitted that in view of the Notifications of the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000, as per Section 73 of that Act, the earlier Prisons Act, 1894, in its application to Delhi, has been totally repealed. It was further submitted that there is no bar anywhere for the applicability of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, to the case of the applicant. It was submitted that all the necessary requisite documents and pros and cons of the matter were taken into consideration before the applicant, along with two other above named co-delinquents, were charge sheeted for a common DE proceedings against them. It was further submitted that the Chief Secretary, Delhi, is fully competent in the matter of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.
27. It was further submitted that even the cited High Courts judgment regarding liberty granted thereby concerned only Shri Subhash Sharma, since no two cases are alike in terms of responsibilities attached to the posts occupied by the two officials, and hence the present applicant seeking relief on the ground of parity with the said Shri Subhash Sharma, was not warranted, and cannot be sustained. It was further submitted that the principle of estoppel cannot be invoked to defeat the plain provisions of a statute, as it is settled law that the doctrine of estoppel does not lie against any law or statute. It was pointed out that the enquiry conducted by Shri R.K. Gauba, Registrar (Vig.) of Delhi High Court, itself had found that the prisoner Jaswant Singh has gone out of the prison without serving the sentence awarded to him, which amounted to his escape from confinement, merely on account of negligence of the concerned officials of both Jails, i.e., Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi and the District Jail, Ghaziabad, which has led to the Charge Sheet against the applicant and two others.
28. It was further pointed out that when once the prisoner did not come back after production in the Ghaziabad Court, then immediately the punishment and other details in respect of the concerned prisoner needed to be informed to the recipient Jail, i.e., Ghaziabad Jail, in the concerned matter, which was not done by the applicant. It was further submitted that even while issuing the Charge Sheet, ample chance, time and opportunity has been given to the applicant to represent against that, and he would be given ample opportunity to represent his case further during proceedings of the disciplinary enquiry matter. It was further submitted that only when the paper submitted to the Directorate of Vigilance, it came out that Shri Bhargava, Asstt. Superintendent was equally involved in the lapse having been committed in Tihar Jail, and, therefore, he had also been charge-sheeted along with the applicant and another. It was submitted that the respondents have explained the delay in issuing of the Charge Sheet.
29. It was further submitted that the prayer of the Charged officer in this OA is pre-mature, and, therefore, the OA deserves to be dismissed, with exemplary cost upon the applicant, and that in the disciplinary proceedings, since the matter has not yet been concluded even till date, and the applicant would have the provision to appeal in the matter, if aggrieved. It was further submitted that even the representation dated 26.11.2013 of the Charged Officer had been received only on 31.01.2014, and was under consideration, and even before it was received by them, the applicant had filed this OA on 05.12.2013 prematurely, which, therefore, needs to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
30. It was submitted that since the applicant was appointed in the capacity of the Jail officer by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, and hence the Chief Secretary of Govt. of NCT of Delhi was the Competent Authority for issuing the Charge Sheet. It was further submitted that by the common judgment dated 06.08.2010 passed by the Division Bench of Honble Delhi High Court in several Writ Petitions decided collectively vide No.721/2007, 51/2010, 67/2010, 3644/2010, 49/2010, 50/2010 etc., it has been held that an enquiry can be held by issuing Show Cause Notice and giving a copy of the telecast to the delinquent employees, and giving them an opportunity to explain, before taking a final view as to whether it is a case where a regular departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules should be held, or further enquiry may be dispensed with. However, this also has not been done by the petitioners in this case. It was, therefore, submitted that the applicant does not deserve the relief as prematurely prayed for by him in this OA, and the OA is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost, as it is devoid of any merits whatsoever.
31. Applicant filed his rejoinder on 05.09.2014 more or less reiterating his contentions as already made in the OA as reproduced above, and again alleging inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in having initiated the DE proceedings by issuing the impugned Charge Sheet. The applicant further submitted that the respondents were wrong in projecting as if the above cited OA No.778/2006 was in personam, and not in rem, despite the fact that they had challenged the same before the Honble High Court, and the Honble Apex Court, in both the fora. It was further submitted that in view of the mandate of Rules 3 (1)(e) of CCS (CCA) Rules, the applicant has to be proceeded against for violation of the provisions of Delhi Prisons Act, 2000, only under the Rules framed under that Act, and such proceedings cannot be initiated under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, since he had been charged with violation of the provisions of the Prisons Act.
32. It was further submitted that though the Prisons Act, 1894, had been repealed by Section 73 of the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000, but as no Rules have been framed under the Delhi Act, 2000, the applicant continued to be governed by the Punjab Jail Executive Staff (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1943. It was further submitted that the executive staff of Delhi Prisons is at par with Military and Para Military Forces. It was submitted that the applicant was a co-petitioner with the said Shri Subhash Sharma before the Honble Delhi High Court, and it was denied that the said Subhash Sharmas case was different from that of the applicant. It was submitted that although the duties and responsibilities of the three officers jointly charged were different, surprisingly same charge had been framed against all the three of them, and after saying so, the applicant had annexed a copy of the Charge Sheet issued to the said Subhash Sharma also. It was also submitted that while disciplinary action had been taken against the staff of Tihar Jail and Ghaziabad Jail, but no action had been taken against the 3rd Bn. of Delhi Police, which had escorted the imprisoned convict for production before the Court in Ghaziabad. In the result, it was prayed that the OA is not premature, and deserves to be allowed.
33. Heard. The case was argued vehemently by both the learned counsel. During the arguments on 20.04.2015, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.1964/2011 Ex. Const. Dalip Singh vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi pronounced on 09.01.2015, in which the Coordinate Bench had taken note of the Honble Apex Courts judgment in Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P. Education Society and Others (2013) 6 SCC 515, and had held in Para 9 & 10 of its judgment and order as follows:-
9. The Honble Apex Court in a recent Judgement in Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P.Education Society and others, (2013) 6 SCC 515 held as under:
Enquiry at belated stage:
14. The court/tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental enquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is de hors the limitation of judicial review. In the event that the court/tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. Therefore, a charge-sheet or show cause notice, issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by court. The same principle is applicable in relation to there being a delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The facts and circumstances of the case in question, must be carefully examined, taking into consideration the gravity/magnitude of charges involved therein. The Court has to consider the seriousness and magnitude of the charges and while doing so the Court must weigh all the facts, both for and against the delinquent officers and come to the conclusion, which is just and proper considering the circumstances involved. The essence of the matter is that the court must take into consideration all relevant facts, and balance and weigh the same, so as to determine, if it is infact in the interest of clean and honest administration, that the said proceedings are allowed to be terminated, only on the ground of a delay in their conclusion. (Vide: State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr., AIR 1987 SC 943; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh & Anr., AIR 1990 SC 1308; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570; State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan, AIR 1998 SC 1833; M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 3475; Union of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC 906; The Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. v. Prabash Chandra Mirdha, AIR 2012 SC 2250; and Chairman, LIC of India & Ors. v. A. Masilamani, JT (2012) 11 SC 533). (Emphasis supplied).
10. In view of the aforesaid categorical declaration of law by the Honble Apex Court with regard to the inquiry at belated stage, i.e., a chargesheet or show cause notice, issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by the Court on the sole ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings5, we do not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. The applicant also failed to show any extraordinary circumstances which warrant interference of this Tribunal with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant at this stage.
34. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant had relied upon the Daily Order Sheet dated 27.03.2015 in OA No.4527/2014, in which the Bench had noted the submission that the impugned charge sheet issued had been vitiated on the ground that the same had been issued belatedly, and under wrong set of Rules, and by an authority which was not the Disciplinary Authority of the applicant.
35. Needless to add that the above cited portion was only a recording of the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant during the hearing of that OA on 27.03.2015, and not a finding or/and ratio arrived at by the Tribunal, after considering the merits of the entire case. While this Bench is fully bound to follow the law and the ratio as laid down by the Honble Apex Court in Anant R. Kulkarni (supra), which has been followed by a Coordinate Bench in its judgment and order in OA No.1964/2011-Ex. Const. Dalip Singh (supra), as per the law as laid down by the Honble Apex Court in numerous cases, including the judgment in the case of SI Roop Lal and another Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi & others (2000) 1 SCC 644, but that proposition of law requiring us to follow the judgments and orders of Coordinate Benches does not apply to any interim orders, as passed while recording the day-to-day Order Sheets, which do not amount to any determination or ratio on merits.
36. When the case was listed For Being Spoken to , learned counsel for the applicant filed the paper book of CC No. 3360-3365/2011 in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. R.D. Bohet etc. etc., in which the order passed by the then Honble Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi Shri B.L. Joshi, and the then Chief Secretary, Shri S. Raghunathan, had been relied upon, while praying for grant of Special Leave to Appeal against the orders of the Honble High Court, on the ground that the Honble High Court had not appreciated the fact that this Tribunal is not justified in holding that the Chief Secretary is not the Appointing Authority, and the State Govt. is the Appointing Authority, and that the Tribunal had decided this issue accordingly, without there being any pleadings in this regard, and which issue had not even been raised in the OA, and, therefore, the petitioners before the Honble Apex Court had had no opportunity to make submissions on the same. The learned counsel had also filed a copy of the order of the Honble Apex Court dated 23.01.2012 in those related cases at CC No.3360-65/2011, in which the Honble Apex Court had refused to interfere with impugned judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court, and had dismissed the SLP.
37. We have gone through the entire paper book of the abovementioned case as was filed before the Honble Apex Court, and the brief order passed by the Honble Apex Court on 23.01.2012, by a two Judges Bench, merely dismissing the SLP.
38. On the other hand, the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Anant R. Kulkarni (supra) was a detailed judgment, on merits, examining the entire case law on the subject of disciplinary enquiry at a belated stage, and citing almost all the previous cases decided by the Honble Apex Court on that point, and it was held that setting aside DE, and quashing the charges, on the ground of delay in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, amounts to exceeding the power of judicial review at the very threshold, and it was, therefore, held that a Charge Sheet or a Show Cause Notice issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by the Court. Since the Honble Apex Courts judgment in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni (supra) is of the year 2013, and is now the law of the land, the applicant cannot be allowed to derive any benefit from an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 24.11.2006 in the case of R.D. Bohet (supra), even though it was upheld later by the Honble High Court, and the SLP arising from that was dismissed in limine by a crisp and short order by the Honble Apex Court on 23.01.2012. All the three of the events were prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court judgment in Anant R. Kulkarni (supra), which is latest law in this regard, and, therefore, we are bound by the same.
39. We find no merit whatsoever in the contention of the applicant that even though he is governed by the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000, since the Rules under that Act had not been notified till the date of issuance of charge sheet to him, he could not have been proceeded against under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and should only be proceeded against under the Punjab Jail Executive Staff (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1943, just because, according to him, the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, are more stringent in nature as compared to the 1943 Rules.
40. After considering all the facts of the case, since we are bound by the above reproduced ratio of the Honble Apex Courts judgment in Anant R. Kulkarni (supra), we refuse to interfere with the DE proceedings initiated against the applicant, and the only single prayer made by the applicant in the present OA, for quashing the Charge Sheet issued by the respondents on 22.10.2013, is, therefore, rejected. Since notices have not been issued in MA No.1548/2015, the same is also dismissed as not maintainable. But there shall be no order as to costs.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Sudhir Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) cc.