Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. D.R. Banerjee vs Union Of India on 8 October, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 1774/2009 New Delhi this the 8th day of October, 2010. Honble Mr. Justice V.K.Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) Sh. D.R. Banerjee, Assistant Director, Census Operations (T), Library Sewa Bhawan, R.K.Puram, New Dehi-66. Applicant (By Advocate Shri O.P.Gehlaut ) VERSUS 1. Union of India, Through the Registrar General of India, Office of the Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2/A Man Singh Road, New Delhi-110011 2. Dr. C.S.Arora, Director (EDP), Pushpa Bhawan D-Wing, 2nd Floor, New Delhi. .. Respondents (By Advocate Shri R.C. Gautam ) O R D E R Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) :
Sh. D R Banerjee, the Applicant herein, is assailing the order dated 26.05.2009 of the President qua disciplinary authority by which the following punishment has been inflicted on him:
Reduction to the lower grade of Assistant Director until he is found fit by the Competent Authority. His reduction to the lower grade of Assistant Director will be for a minimum period of five years with immediate effect and on re-promotion he will not regain his original seniority in the higher grade assigned to him presently. By office order dated 1.06.2009 the order of the President was implemented. The orders dated 26.05.2009 and 1.06.2009 have been impugned in this OA, with prayer to set aside both the orders and grant him consequential benefits.
2. The Applicant belongs to SC category and was working as Deputy Director in the Directorate of Census Operations under the Registrar General of India, the first Respondent in the OA, at the relevant time. A Memorandum of Charge dated 4.04.2007 containing the following Articles of charges was issued to the Applicant:
Article 1 Shri D.R. Banerjee while functioning as Deputy Director in the Directorate of Census Operations, Sikkim misappropriated the Government funds in organizing Data Dissemination Workshop, purchase of Briefcase and setting up of Census Book Stall at Maghy Mela during 2004-05 and 2005-06.
The above act of the officer is a grave misconduct and in violation of the provisions of Rules 3 (1)(i), 3 (1) (ii) & 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules,1964.
Article-II Shri D.R.Banerjee while functioning as Deputy Director in the Directorate of Census Operations, Sikkim submitted bogus TA bills for the journey performed by him during the period 2004-05 and 2005-06. By doing so, he has embezzled the Government funds.
The above act of the officer is grave misconduct and violation of the provisions of Rules 3 (1)(i), 3 (1) (ii) & 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules,1964.
Article-III Shri D.R. Banerjee while functioning as Deputy Director in the Directorate of Census Operations, Sikkim, incurred expenditure and passed bills for payment by exercising financial powers beyond his delegated powers without approval of the competent authority.
The above act of the officer is a grave misconduct and in violation of the provisions of Rules 3 (1)(i), 3 (1) (ii) & 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules,1964.
Article -IV Shri D.R. Banerjee while functioning as Deputy Director in the Directorate of Census Operations, Sikkim submitted fake report relating to conduct of Hindi Workshop during December 2005. By doing so, he has misguided his superior officers.
The above act of the officer is a grave misconduct and in violation of the provisions of Rules 3 (1)(i), 3 (1) (ii) & 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules,1964. An inquiry was held in the matter, culminating in the imposition of penalty.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant did not understand English as he had studied the language only up to Middle School level. His request for supplying a copy of the Memorandum of Charge in Hindi was never acceded to, which was a serious handicap for the Applicant. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicant that there were serious procedural irregularities in the inquiry conducted by the inquiry authority. The Applicant made a detailed representation in reply to the report of the inquiry authority, which is placed at pages 52 to 58 of the paper book. However, the disciplinary authority, it was urged, did not consider any of the arguments raised by the Applicant.
4. A perusal of the order of the disciplinary authority would reveal that it was indeed so. The disciplinary authority has gone to the extent of observing in paragraph 7 of his order that:
7. And whereas Shri D.R. Bannerjee in his reply dated 17.10.2007 did not offer any comments on the Report. However, he again denied the charges levelled against him. It is surprising that the disciplinary authority should give such short shrift to the points raised in his representation by the Applicant. The Applicant has challenged the assertion of the inquiry authority that the charged officer had admitted that the codal formalities were not followed fully and that he had pleaded guilty to charge number IV. It was also denied that that he ever admitted correctness of charge number III, as recorded by the inquiry authority. It was stated that there was no statement of the Applicant admitting these charges. It was also stated that the inquiry authority had suo motu introduced additional documents/materials in the ambit of inquiry, which were not part of the documents/material listed in the appendix to the Memorandum of Charge. The procedure prescribed in Rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 was not followed in as much as the inquiry authority did not question the charged officer generally in regard to the evidence against him. Several questions have been raised about the inferences drawn by the inquiry officer allegedly without any evidence. All these issues are extremely serious and have been just ignored by observing that the charged officer did not offer any comments on the report of the inquiry officer. All we can say is that the disciplinary authority has been very negligent and too casual in disregarding the substantive issues raised by the Applicant in his reply to the report of the inquiry officer.
5. We are not going into several other arguments raised on behalf of the Applicant. The Respondent has not been able to answer how the order of the disciplinary authority could be justified in the light of what has been discussed above. We are not going into the merits of the case also.
6. It would suffice at this stage to quash and set aside the order of the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority may, however, pass a fresh order after considering the representation of the Applicant and answering the issues raised therein. The Applicant would be eligible for all the consequential benefits following setting aside of the order of the disciplinary authority by being restored to his grade and by reimbursing to him the amount deducted from his salary as a consequence of reduction to lower grade with simple interest of 6 per cent per annum. These directions shall be complied with within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
( L.K.Joshi ) ( V.K.Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman sk