Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
J P Sharma vs M/O Finance on 26 July, 2022
(OA No.63/2013)
(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
O.A.No.63/2013
Reserved on:18.07.2022
Pronounced on:26.07.2022
Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Hina P. Shah, Member (J)
J.P. Sharma s/o late Shri Mathura Lal Sharma by cast
Sharma, aged about 62 years, r/o Suraj Poora Road,
Jhalawar, presently comp. retd. As spoy from o/o Dy.
Narcotics Commissioner Neemuch and r/o Surajpole Road,
Jhalawar. C/o H.No.2119-20, Near Mistri Khana, Gangori
Bazar, Jaipur-I.
...Applicant.
(By Advocate:Shri B.K.Jatti)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary to Govt. of India
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Central
Board of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Custom,
New Delhi.
2. Narcotics Commissioner of India 19th Mall Morar,
Gwarilor-6, M.P.
3. Deputy Narcotics Commissioner Neemuch, M.P.
...Respondents.
(By Advocates: Shri Rajendra Vaish)
ORDER
Per: Dinesh Sharma, Member (A):
In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"8.1 That by a suitable writ/order or the direction the impugned order vide Annexure A/1 dated 28.2.2012/18.10.2011 with the (OA No.63/2013) (2) punishment order dated 1.2.2006 vide Annexure A/18, order dated 5.5.2006-26- 27.4.2006 vide Annexure A/20 be quashed and set aside.
8.2 That the respondents be directed to treat the applicant on duty w.e.f. 2.2.2006 till the date of superannuation with all the consequential benefits.
8.3 that the orders of compulsory retirement be taken back and the applicant be treated on duty till the date of superannuation as 31/8/2011.
8.4 That the period of dies non w.e.f. 11/11/2004 to 23/1/2005 be treated on duty and the orders of dies non be cancelled as the applicant has not done any such act for which the period of the applicant from 11/11/2004 to 23/1/2005 has been treated as dies non. Therefore, period from 11/11/2004 to 23/1/2005 be treated on duty.
8.5 that the pension of the applicant be fixed, treating the applicant on duty with all the consequential benefits upto 31/8/2011.
8.6 Any other relief which the Hon'ble bench deems fit."
2. The applicant has been punished by order dated 01.02.2006, following an inquiry after charge sheet dated 20.01.2005. This punishment order has been sustained by the appellate and revisional authorities by their orders dated26/27.04.2006 and 18.10.2011 respectively. The charge against the applicant, very briefly summarized, was of having received a bribe of Rs.15000 from one Shri Panna Lal, allegedly for sparing the complainant from punishment (OA No.63/2013) (3) of rejection of his license on account of shortage of weighment in the quantity of opium produced by him. The applicant has challenged the punishment on grounds that the charges against him were not specific, the inquiry officer has split one charge into three charges and has found the first two (relating to differences in weighment) not proved, while finding only the charge of accepting bribe as proved. This is also not based on evidence produced as the complainant himself denied having paid any bribe. The O.A. lists other inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses to state that the findings of the inquiry officer or the disciplinary/appellate/revisional authorities are not based on evidence produced during this inquiry. The applicant also states that he was not the person responsible for weighment and the other person, who was actually in charge, has not been proceeded against.
3. The respondents have denied the averments of the applicant regarding there being anything illegal in the punishment. The punishment has been imposed after issuing proper charge-sheet, conduct of inquiry during which the applicant was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself, and after giving him further noticealong with a disagreement note on matters on which the disciplinary authority differed (OA No.63/2013) (4) with the finding of the inquiry officer. The complainant changing his statement during the inquiry did not matter since the same person had given a statement on oath before a notary public (regarding payment of bribe) and he did not deny having signed that affidavit. The applicant has been punished after properly following the procedure and all his arguments in his defense have been considered by the relevant authorities who have passed reasoned and speaking orders. The punishment for bribery should be dismissal and the disciplinary authorities have already taken a lenient view by imposing only compulsory retirement. There was no need for taking any action against anyone else as there was complaint of bribery only against the applicant.
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder denying the averments of the respondents and reiterating the facts and claims mentioned in his O.A.
5. The matter was finally heard on 18.07.2022. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that there was no provision under any rules relating to disciplinary action to split the charges into three, when there were no such three separate charges mentioned in the charge sheet. This was a serious breach of procedure which vitiated the entire process (OA No.63/2013) (5) of inquiry and punishment. The punishment orders, based on charges that were not specific, and which are not proved on the basis of the evidence produced during the inquiry, should therefore be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the scope of intervention by the Tribunal in disciplinary matters was limited. He cited a number of decisions (listed below) to support his argument that the Tribunal should not go into the issues of facts and substitute its judgment for the judgments of the concerned authorities except under exceptional circumstances, as indicated in these judgments, such intervention is justified. In the present case, there is no ambiguity in the chargesheet given. The inquiry officers splitting his findings in three heads did not, by itself, result in any denial of opportunity or injustice to the applicant. In any case, there was another notice given by the disciplinary authority, along with a disagreement note, giving the applicant an opportunity to defend himself. The concerned authorities have arrived at their findings on the basis of prima-facie correct appreciation of evidence available before them, after considering the defense of the applicant and giving full opportunity to the applicant to defend himself. There is not even a charge of mala-fides against any of the authorities concerned. The punishment was relatively mild for an (OA No.63/2013) (6) offence of bribery and therefore there was absolutely no justification for the Tribunal to intervene in this matter. The judgments produced by the learned counsel for the respondents are listed below:
i) Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Limited and Another vs. Jai Raj Singh Chauhan (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 67;
ii) State Bank of India vs. Ramesh Kumar
Kachhawaha 2019 (1) WLC (Raj.) 126;
iii) Union of India & Others vs. Alok Kumar and
Another of the Rajasthan High Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No.16043/2010;
iv) Sudarshan Sharma vs. Union of India & Others of the CAT Jaipur Bench in OA No.545/2012;
6. We have gone through the records and perused the judgments cited. After going through these, we find ourselves in total agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents. This is clearly a case where a relatively minor punishment (of compulsory retirement, which allows a person to get his pension, etc) has been imposed in a matter where all the concerned authorities (the inquiry officer, the disciplinary/appellate/revisional authorities) found the charge of bribery proved against the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the charges were vague or non-specific and the inquiry officers splitting his findings after splitting the charge into three is a serious (OA No.63/2013) (7) breach of procedure (as it is nowhere mentioned in the rules that charges can be split in this way). We have gone through the charge memo (Annexure A/2) and the inquiry report (Annexure A/14). We do find that the inquiry officer has given his findings after splitting the charge into three heads. He has not found sufficient evidence relating to complainant's opium being short in weight or to prove the applicant's role in the correction in the weighment (though accepting overwriting), but has found the charge of bribery (of accepting Rs.15000) as proved. We fail to see any logic in the applicant's counsel's argument that an inquiry report of this type is a total violation of the procedure prescribed and therefore the whole process gets vitiated. The inquiry officer has not added any new charge. We are not shown in what way this split finding (if it can be called so) has prejudiced the applicant. In any case, there has been further opportunity given to the applicant, to show case against, by the disciplinary authority, before imposing the punishment, by issuing a disagreement note, with reasons for the disagreement. Thus, apparently, there has been no denial of principles of natural justice, in addition to there being no breach of procedure.
(OA No.63/2013) (8)
7. The decisions cited by the counsel for the respondents, very clearly and precisely, describe the scope of judicial intervention in matters of disciplinary action. Since it is a settled law, we do not see any need for further quoting from these decisions. Suffice it is to say that we have gone through these decisions. In the light of these decisions and looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case, no intervention by this Tribunal, in the matter of punishment imposed on the applicant, is warranted. The O.A. is, therefore, dismissed. No costs (Hina P. Shah) (Dinesh Sharma) Member (J) Member (A) /kdr/