Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr Veer Singh vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 3 January, 2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A./100/339/2015
M.A./100/4640/2018
M.A./100/4047/2015
New Delhi, this the 3rd day of January, 2019
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)
Dr. Veer Singh
Retd. CMO (SAG)
S/o Shri Bhim Singh
Aged about 62 years
R/o A-1/204, Milan Vihar
CGHS, Plot No.72
I.P. Extension, Patparganj,
Delhi-110092 ....Applicant
(Through Shri Nilansh Gaur, Advocate)
Versus
1. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Through its Secretary,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. Principal Secretary (H&FW Dept.)
Department of Health & Family Welfare
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
9th Level, Delhi Secretariat
I.P. Estate, New Delhi ... Respondents
(Through Shri Amit Anand, for respondent 2
Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan, for respondent 1)
ORDER (Oral)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman The applicant was working as Chief Medical Officer in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi 2 OA 339/2015 (GNCTD). On account of the position held by him, he was made a part of Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) for choosing a sanitation agency for 13 government hospitals under the GNCTD. Charge memos were issued to the applicant and other members of the TEC, alleging that they recommended the acceptance of L-3 though there were more economic offers from L-1 and L-2. It was stated that acceptance of the same would have resulted in financial loss to the Administration. The applicant submitted his explanation. This OA is filed challenging the very charge memo dated 28.06.2012 issued in respect of acts allegedly committed in 2005-2006. The applicant has since retired on 30.06.2012.
2. It is pleaded that the tenders that emerged as L-1 and L-2 did not meet the requirement of minimum wages and accordingly it was felt proper to accept the offer of L-3. The applicant pleads that it is for the accepting authority to take a final decision and the issuance of charge memo is totally unjustified.
3. Respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the OA is not maintainable for challenging charge memo and the truth or otherwise of the allegation needs to be considered in a departmental inquiry. Reference is also made to the fact 3 OA 339/2015 that the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor gave opportunity of being heard to the applicant and the inquiry would be conducted in accordance with law.
4. We heard Shri Nilansh Gaur, for the applicant and Shri Amit Anand and Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan, for the respondents.
5. The basic facts are that the applicant was part of the TEC, constituted way back in the year 2005-06. Six years thereafter, a charge memo was issued alleging that the Committee made recommendations which are not correct. Identical issue was dealt with by us in OA No.3249/2015. The applicant therein, by name Dr. Sandeep Miglani, was also part of the same TEC. The charges leveled against him read as under:
"Article I That the said Dr. Sandeep Miglani (S. Miglani), the then C.M.O. (S&P), Directorate of Health Services, Government of NCT of Delhi, during the year 2005-2006, while functioning as Member of the Committee for opening and evaluation of Tenders/Tender Committee for sanitation services in 13 hospitals under Directorate of Health Services committed gross misconduct in as much as he, in violation of terms and conditions of the tender document and provisions of General Finance rule - 160 (GFR-160), recommended to add new condition i.e. „obtaining the manpower deployment plan‟ from four bidders whose technical bids were shortlisted, for evaluation of their price bids. By his above act, Dr. Sandeep Miglani (S. Miglani), the then C.M.O. (S&P), Directorate of Health Services, Government of N.C.T. Delhi, has caused breach of trust, failed to 4 OA 339/2015 discharge assigned duties in an honest and impartial way, exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty, and has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby contravening the provisions of sub rule 1(i) (ii) (iii) of Rule 3 of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article II That the said Dr. Sandeep Miglani (S. Miglani), the then C.M.O. (S&P), Directorate of Health Services, Government of N.C.T. Delhi, during the year 2005-2006, while functioning as Member of the Committee for opening and evaluation of tenders/Tender Committee for sanitation services in 13 hospitals under Directorate of Health Services committed gross misconduct in as much as, he in violation of the terms and conditions of the tender document and provisions of General Finance Rule-160 (GFR-160), recommended and got approved award of contract for sanitation services in 13 hospitals under Directorate of Health Services to M/s Goodyear Services, L-3 bidder and ignored the bid of L-1, in an arbitrary manner taking into consideration the manpower deployment plan which was not part/condition of the tender document, by way of misrepresentation causing extra expenditure to the Government.
By his above act, Dr. Sandeep Miglani (S. Miglani), the then C.M.O. (S&P), Directorate of Health Services, Government of N.C.T. Delhi, has caused breach of trust, failed to discharge assigned duties in an honest and impartial way, exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty, and has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby contravening the provisions of sub rule 1(i) (ii) (iii) of Rule 3 of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
The charges against the applicant are identical and verbatim, the same.
6. In the case of Dr. Sandeep Miglani, the Hon'ble L.G. dealt with the issue in detail and passed an order dated 28.02.2013. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:
"4. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, I order that the charges framed against the 5 OA 339/2015 Charged Officer, Dr. Sandeep Miglani, in this case be dropped and this Disciplinary Proceedings closed. The Charged Officer, Dr. Sandeep Miglani, CMO-NFSG, Delhi Government Dispensary, Prashant Vihar, be also appropriately informed."
7. This order was sought to be varied and reviewed by initiating subsequent proceedings. The Tribunal took exception to that and allowed the OA on 2.11.2018. It was held that once the Hon'ble L.G. has applied his mind and decided to drop the charges, there is no basis to reopen the same by his successor.
8. In the instant case, it no doubt true that neither the Hon'ble L.G. passed the order nor there was any review. However, it is not in dispute that the very Articles of Charge were addressed on merit and decision was taken of dropping the proceedings. Once the proceedings in a similar case have attained finality, there is no reason to deny the same benefit to the applicant.
9. We, therefore, allow the OA and quash the impugned charge memo. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Pradeep Kumar) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
Member (A) Chairman
/dkm/