Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ravi Suman Prasad vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 19 November, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
O.A.No.4149/2015
Order Reserved on: 16.11.2015
Order pronounced on 19.11.2015
Hon'ble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Shri Uday Kumar Varma, Member (A)
Ravi Suman Prasad, aged 47 years
Designation: Inspector
Resident of 8-1-58
Old Gajuwaka
Vishakapatnam
Andhra Pradesh. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M. Sowri Dev)
Versus
1. Central Bureau of Investigation
Through Director CBI
Plot No.5-B, Lodhi Road
Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Marg
New Delhi-110 003.
2. Rajeev Sharma, IPS
Jt. Director & Head of Zone
CBI, Bhopal Zone, Camp New Delhi
Plot No.5-B, Lodhi Road,
Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Marg
New Delhi-110 003.
3. The Head of Branch
CBI, ACB, Bhilai
Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents
O.A.No.4149/2015
2
ORDER
By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
Heard Shri M. Sowri Dev, the learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The applicant, an Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chattisgarh, Bhilai, filed the OA, seeking to set aside the Charge Memorandum dated 28.09.2015 (Annexure P/13) by raising various grounds on the factual aspects of the same.
3. The respondents issued the impugned Charge Memorandum on 28.09.2015 and called for a representation, if any, within ten days from the date of receipt of the said Memorandum. The sole charge levelled against the applicant, vide the said Charge Memorandum, reads as under:
"1. That Shri R.S. Prasad, while posted and functioning as Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chhattisgarh, Bhilai during the year 2014 to 2015 was found lacking in devotion to duty and committed gross misconduct in as much as inspite of instructions given to him in writing by HOB, CBI, ACB, Chhattisgarh, Bhilai to report for duty through repeated Recall Notices duly served on him under proper acknowledgement, but he failed to report for duty and wilfully remained absent from duty without sanction/extension of his leave by the competent authority.
And thus, he was found lacking in devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and thereby contravened Rule 3(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
4. The applicant, through the present application, tried to explain how the charge levelled against him is not correct, and under what compelling circumstances he went on leave on various occasions, and that how he was diligent in discharging his duties. O.A.No.4149/2015 3
5. It is well settled that the scope and power of judicial review of this Tribunal, at the stage of Charge Memorandum, is very limited.
6. In Union of India & Others v. Upendra Singh, JT 1994 (1) SC 658], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"6. In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be. The function of the court/tribunal is one of judicial review, the parameters of which are repeatedly laid down by this court. It would be sufficient to quote the decision in H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Karnal v. Gopi Nath & Sons . The bench comprising M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) and A.M. Ahmadi, J., affirmed the principle thus :
"Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself."
7. In Union of India & Others v. Kunnisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State O.A.No.4149/2015 4 Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.
14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established.
It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.
15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet.
16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."
8. In Secretary, Min. of Defence & Ors. v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, AIR 2012 SC 2250, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge- sheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. (Vide :
State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [JT 1987 (1) SC 571 : AIR 1987 SC 943]; Executive Engineer, Bihar State O.A.No.4149/2015 5 Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Ors. [JT 1995 (8) SC 331 : 1996 (1) SCC 327]; Ulagappa & Ors. v. Div.
Commr., Mysore & Ors. [JT 2000 (10) SC 206 . AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2)]; Special Director & Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & Anr. [JT 2004 (1) SC 206 : AIR 2004 SC 1467]; and Union of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [AIR 2007 SC 906])."
9. The learned counsel for the applicant, except reiterating the averments made in the OA, is not able to show any rare and exceptional circumstances such as lack of jurisdiction, incompetence of the authority which issued the charge memorandum or violation of any rule or law warranting this Tribunal to interfere with the impugned Charge Memorandum. However, he submitted that, though no copy is filed along with the OA but the applicant made a representation to the respondents against the Charge Memorandum by explaining that the charge levelled against him is unsustainable and liable to be dropped. Even if the respondents do not convince with the representation made by the applicant, he will get an opportunity to defend his case as per the disciplinary rules applicable to him.
10. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the OA, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that neither the dismissal of this OA nor any of the observations made hereinabove, shall have any bearing on the disciplinary case of the applicant. No costs.
(Uday Kumar Varma) (V. Ajay Kumar)
Member (A) Member (J)
/nsnrvak/