Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Coram vs Chief Secretary on 17 November, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A.NO.454 OF 2013 New Delhi, this the 17th day of November, 2014 CORAM: HONBLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AND HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Prabhu Nath Prasad, s/o Shyam Sundar Prasad, Block No.130, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi 110059 . Applicant (By Advocate: Shri A.S.N.Murthi) Vs. 1. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate, Delhi. 2. Member (Administration), Delhi Jal Board, Government of NCT of Delhi, Varunalaya Building-Phase II, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 3. Deputy Director (Vigilance), Delhi Jal Board, Government of NCT of Delhi, Varunalaya Building-Phase II, Karol Bagh, New Delhli 110005 . Respondents (By Advocate: Shri N.R.Pandey) ORDER Raj Vir Sharma, Member(J):
In this Original Application filed on 4.12.2013, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
(i) Quash and set aside the Respondents impugned Orders dt.23.03.2010, 11.05.2010, dt.10.08.2010, dt.08.11.2010, dt.01.11.2011, dt.30.04.2012, dt.25.07.2012 which are collectively appended as Annexure A/1 to this O.A;
(ii) Quash and set aside other orders, if any, issued by the respondents extending the suspension period of the applicant but not received in the hands of the applicant relevant to the period between 07.02.2011 till date;
(iii) Direct the respondents to permit the applicant to resume his duties as Pump Operator with immediate effect;
(iv) Direct the respondents to desist from invoking the provisions of Rule 10(1) of the Discipline Rules till a decision of the Government of Bihar is forthcoming since the circumstances of the case are such that unless the State Government of Bihar which is presently examining/implementing the directions of the Honble High Court of Judicature of Patna contained in their Judgment/Order dt.20.04.2010 in CWJC No.12334 of 2009 comes out with its decision and until the caste certificate produced by the applicant is cancelled by the Competent Authority as per the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in Madhuri Patils case [Madhuri Patil Vs. Commissioner, Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241 = 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349 = (1994) 28 ATC 259];
(v) Direct the respondents to disburse full pay and allowances including all other benefits such as annual increments, bonus etc. as admissible to the applicant during the period of suspension as the suspension was illegal, arbitrary and has been ordered without application of mind;
(vi) Pass any other order or orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(vii) Award costs.
2. Brief facts of the applicants case, as projected in the O.A., are as follows:
2.1 The applicant belongs to Kharia community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. He had been selected and appointed as a Pump Driver, against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe, in the Delhi Jal Board under the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and had joined the said post on 04.06.1998. At the time of his initial appointment, the Scheduled Tribe Certificate, the Attestation Form and other documents had been verified by the respondents from the concerned authorities, and nothing adverse had been found against him.
2.2 After lapse of more than a decade, respondent no.2 issued a Memo dated 30.12.2008 (Annexure A/3) alleging that the Scheduled Tribe Certificate in respect of the applicant issued by the office of the District Magistrate, Siwan, Bihar, was got verified, and the District Magistrate, Siwan, Bihar, informed that the applicant belongs to most Backward Category Sch.I. By the said Memo, the applicant was called upon to explain reasons as to why legal/disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for submitting forged/fake certificate. The applicant submitted his explanation dated 12.1.2009 (Annexure A/4) denying the allegations contained in the Memo dated 30.12.2008.
2.3 Thereafter, respondent no.1 issued order dated 23.3.2009 placing the applicant under suspension with immediate effect under Rule 10(1)(b) of the CCS (CCA)Rules, 1965 on the grounds that a criminal offence against the applicant was registered by the CBI (Anti Corruption Branch), vide FIR No. RC-DAI-2009-A-0051 dt.11.11.2009, and that a charge sheet was also filed by the CBI against the applicant before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
2.4 The suspension case of the applicant was reviewed from time to time under Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and formal orders were issued extending the suspension period for a period of 90 days on each occasion; the last such order was issued on 8.11.2010 extending the suspension period of 90 days up to 7.2.2011. The period of suspension beyond 7.2.2011 was required to be reviewed under Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on or before 7.2.2011, but no such review was undertaken by the respondent no.2. However, he was communicated orders dated 1.11.2011, 30.4.2012 and 25.7.2012 extending the period of his suspension although the suspension order became invalid with effect from 8.2.2011 under Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
2.5 In the O.A., the applicant has mainly contended that no misconduct was ever committed by him; that in view of the direction of the Honble High Court of Patna in the judgment dated 20.4.2010 passed in CWJC No.12334 of 2009, the respondents ought not to have placed him under suspension on the ground of initiation of the criminal proceedings by the Central Bureau of Investigation; and that the charge that he had secured employment on the basis of forged certificate was not levelled against him after following the scheme laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241. In support of his prayer for quashing the suspension order and for reinstatement, the applicant has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Suresh Prasad Vs. Union of India and others, OA No.1368 of 2012, decided on 11.10.2012.
3. Opposing the O.A. the respondents have filed a counter reply. It is stated that suspension of the applicant was reviewed by the Suspension Review Committee from time to time as per rules. The review of suspension of the applicant was made by the Review Committee on 4.2.2011 under Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The suspension of the applicant was further extended for a period of 90 days on each occasion with effect from 7.5.2011 and 5.8.2011, vide orders dated 5.5.2011 and 3.8.2011 respectively. The suspension of the applicant was necessitated in view of filing of the charge sheet by the C.B.I. against him alleging commission of offences under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and not on account of pending of any departmental proceedings. As per C.V.C.s O.M. dated 25.9.2000 the officers facing criminal/departmental proceeding on serious charges should be placed under suspension, and their suspension should not be revoked in a routine manner and it would be appropriate to place a person under suspension if investigation has revealed prima facie case justifying criminal/departmental proceedings which are likely to lead to his conviction and/or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service. It is also stated by the respondents that re-verification of the caste certificate submitted by the applicant was necessitated pursuant to the direction of the Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 5976 of 2003. The District Magistrate, Siwan, vide letter No.1555 dated 13.11.2007, intimated that the applicant belongs to most Backward Caste and not ST. This revealed that forged caste certificate was produced by the applicant to get himself appointed in DJB. Therefore, Memo dated 30.12.2008 was issued calling upon him to explain his position and as to why legal and disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for submitting fake/forged caste certificate. After the applicant filed his representation, the said District Magistrate was again requested to clarify as to whether ST Certificate produced by the applicant was actually issued from his office or not and whether the applicant was earlier belonging to ST but later reverted to Most Backward Caste. There being no reply from the said District Magistrate, no further disciplinary action could be taken against the applicant. In support of above statements, the respondents have filed copies of the orders dated 4.2.2011, 5.5.2011, and 3.8.2011 (Annexure R/1 collectively) extending the period of suspension of the applicant on the recommendations of the Review Committee. Copy of the letter dated 15.3.2010 (Annexure R/2 collectively) along with the charge sheet filed against the applicant by the C.B.I. alleging commission of offences under Sections 420 and 471 IPC has also been filed by the respondents.
4. Refuting the stand taken by the respondents, the applicant has filed a rejoinder reply wherein he has more or less reiterated the same averments and contentions as in the O.A.
5. On 18.7.2014, at the request of the proxy counsel for applicant, the matter was adjourned to 5.9.2014 for hearing, with the stipulation that if on the said date the applicants counsel would not be present, the matter would be heard ex parte. On 5.9.2014, the applicants counsel was not present when the matter was taken up for hearing and therefore, the O.A. was heard ex parte and Shri N.K.Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondents, was heard. Later, the learned counsel for the applicant appeared and stated that he would file written submission by 11.9.2014. Accordingly, a written note of submission was filed by the learned counsel for the applicant on 8.9.2014. We have perused the said written note of submissions filed on behalf of the applicant.
6. In the written note of submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the offences alleged against the applicant do not involve moral turpitude or corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of Government money, etc., and applicant being a Pump Driver working under the respondent no.2, his continuance in service will not prejudice the investigation, trial or any inquiry and will not seriously subvert discipline in the office in which he is working and therefore, his suspension is not covered by any of the circumstances enumerated in the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, letter No.43/56/64-AVD, dated 22.10.1964, more so when the ST Certificate is said to be fake after 27 years of its issuance and after more than a decade of its submission by the applicant before the respondent no.1 at the time of his initial appointment. Thus, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the suspension of the applicant is unjustified and deserves to be revoked forthwith.
7. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the order of suspension of the applicant dated 23.3.2010 was reviewed from time to time in accordance with the rules, and that the applicant has made an attempt to mislead the Tribunal. The learned counsel also submitted that in view of filing of charge sheet by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the criminal court accusing the applicant of commission of offences under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant was placed under suspension under Rule 10(1)(b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and therefore, it cannot be said that the suspension of the applicant is unjustified.
8. Before proceeding further, we would like to refer to the decisions cited by the applicant in his O.A. 8.1 CWJC No.12334 of 2009, filed by Akhil Bharatiya Kharia-Nonia Vikash Mahasangh and two others against the State of Bihar and two others, was disposed of by the Honble High Court of Patna, vide judgment dated 20.4.2010, which reads thus:
This writ petition is more in the nature of a representative application by alleged members of Kharias/Kharia-Nonia Scheduled Tribe persons. Their grievance is that their ancestors were tribal and, in course of rehabilitation, had been brought to the planes. They do not belong to the planes of Bihar. Having stayed in different parts of the state at different times, they were granted Scheduled Tribe Certificates by district authorities and other authorities as Kharia was duly notified Scheduled Tribe so far as Bihar is concerned. It appears that sometime back, a writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court wherein a grievance was made that Delhi administration had employed large number of people on basis of Scheduled Caste certificates without verifying their genuineness. In other words, they were employed on forged certificates without verification. The Delhi High Court entrusted the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate. Petitioners and their like are in employment in Delhi and elsewhere on certificates granted by authorities in Delhi and other places on basis of Scheduled Tribe certificates earlier obtained by their parents. It appears, in course of enquiry, the CBI enquired from the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Siwan, which district earlier comprised of Gopalganj, Chapra as well which are now independent districts, whether Kharia tribe lived in those districts. The obvious answer was no because the tribe was not resident of these districts. They were from the hills and in course of rehabilitation, starting from the British time, they were brought to different areas. The authorities, unmindful of these facts, are now taking coercive steps against the petitioners without going into the fact whether the certificate obtained was forged or not, without the certificates being cancelled by competent authority after due enquiry.
Having heard Shri Binod Kanth, learned Senior counsel in this regard on behalf of petitioners, in my view, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending as it can be disposed of conveniently. Having considered the matter, I direct that till it is found that the Scheduled Tribe certificates are forged and the same are not cancelled in due course after enquiry by competent authority, no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioners or members of petitioners association claiming the status of Scheduled Tribe, as such, provided the investigation and/or departmental proceedings would continue in accordance with law. An additional prayer has also been made to recommend Kharia Nonia as a Scheduled Tribe by the State Government. My attention is drawn to various documents of the State Government wherein they have virtually conceded to the demand of the petitioners. This Court is ill-equipped to decide this issue at this stage. Therefore, it leaves to the State Government to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law at an early date so that the genuine claims are not denied, their due benefit which the Constitution confers on notified Scheduled Tribes. Let it be recorded that this Court has not given any opinion on merits of the claims, as made.
With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 8.2 In Kumari Madhuri Patils case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court held thus:
13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following:
1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.
2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned.
3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post.
4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (11) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.
5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.
6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof.
7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.
8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates.
9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant.
10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.
11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.
13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136.
14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament.
15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post. 8.3 In Suresh Prasads case (supra), the Tribunal held thus:
8. In our considered view, when the High Court of Judicature at Patna has asked the State Government of Bihar to make an inquiry to find out whether the Kharias/Kharia-Nonia communities were Tribals or not, whether they belong to Scheduled Tribes or not and whether the members of the said communities including the applicant have obtained the forged certificates of the caste and the competent authority has cancelled those certificates after due inquiry, no coercive steps should be taken in the matter. Therefore, the respondent-department should not have been in a hurry to establish with their own departmental inquiries that the Kharia caste is a Scheduled Tribe and Nonia caste is an OBC. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is in possession of a certificate showing that he belongs to Kharia caste and it is a Scheduled Tribe. In case the findings of the Central Bureau of Investigation is that the applicant is not a Kharia as per the certificate issued to him and he belongs to OBC category they should have taken necessary steps to get the certificate issued to the applicant cancelled by the competent authority. In our considered view, just because the respondents came to the conclusion through their own method of verification that the applicant does not belong to the Kharia community which has been declared as a Scheduled Tribe and it is not established that the applicant belongs to that community, the respondents cannot come to a conclusion that he has obtained the Scheduled Tribe certificate by forgery or by any unlawful means. The genuineness or correctness of the Caste Certificate cannot be gone into by the appointing authority/disciplinary authority in a disciplinary proceedings. It can, of course, ask the issuing authority or the District Collector to verify whether the certificate as issued to the applicant could still be valid or not. However, it is only if the Certificate is cancelled, the disciplinary authority can proceed against the employee for having furnished the false certificate. The cancellation of the caste certificates has its own prescribed procedure and it is for the competent authority to follow it. Secondly, it is seen that a criminal case on the very same issue is pending against the applicant with identical list of documents and witnesses. In the said criminal case also, the allegation against the applicant is that he is having a forged caste certificate showing that he belongs to Kharia community. As held by the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), since the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the applicant is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it is quite appropriate that the departmental enquiries in such cases should wait for the decision in the criminal case pending against the applicant.
9. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we allow and quash and set aside the departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant by the 2nd Respondent vide impugned Memorandum dated 19.03.2007. Consequently, we direct the respondents not to proceed with the departmental inquiry initiated against him pursuant to the aforesaid Memorandum. However, they may take appropriate action to get the Caste Certificate produced by the applicant cancelled by the competent authority after due process and if it is cancelled, they are at liberty to initiate fresh departmental proceedings against him, if so advised.
9. On a perusal of the pleadings of the parties, we find that the Honble High Court of Delhi passed judgment in C.W.P.No.5976 of 2003 directing the Central Government in the Department of Personnel & Training and the Central Bureau of Investigation to identify certain unscrupulous elements securing employment in the Ministries/Departments, PSUs and other establishments of the Central Government and in the Government of NCT of Delhi and its establishments under ST quota on the basis of forged/fake ST Certificates and to bring them to justice. A sample verification conducted by the C.B.I. in respect of 273 instances in the State of Rajasthan, Haryana, Bihar and NCT of Delhi revealed that about 30% persons had secured jobs under ST Quota on the basis of forged/fake ST certificates. This could happen as no proper verification appears to have been conducted by the concerned authorities at the time of recruitment at various levels. Respondent no.2 wrote to the District Magistrate, Siwan, Bihar, for verification of the ST Certificate submitted by the applicant on the basis of which he was appointed as a Pump Driver in the Delhi Jal Board. The said District Magistrate, vide letter No.1555 dated 13.11.2007, intimated that the applicant belongs to most Backward Caste and not ST. Thereafter, Memo dated 30.12.2008 was issued calling upon the applicant to explain his position and as to why legal and disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for submitting fake/forged ST Certificate. The applicant, vide his letter dated 12.1.2009, submitted his explanation denying the allegation. Respondent no.2, vide its letter dated 27.8.2009, requested the District Magistrate, Siwan, to clarify as to whether the ST Certificate produced by the applicant had been actually issued from his office or not and whether he was earlier belonging to ST community but later reverted to Most Backward Caste, but there was no response from the said District Magistrate. In view of silence of the District Magistrate, Siwan, respondent no.2 could not perhaps initiate further departmental action against the applicant.
9.1 While the matter stood thus, the Central Bureau of Investigation, A.C.B., Delhi, registered an FIR No. RC 51(A)/2009 dated 11.11.2009 against the applicant for commission of offences under Sections 420 and 471 IPC. After investigation was over, the Central Bureau of Investigation submitted charge sheet on 22.12.2009 in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi, against the applicant, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471 IPC. From the charge sheet, it transpires that during investigation the District Welfare Officer denied the genuineness of the S.T. Certificate which was produced by the applicant at the time of his initial appointment. On the basis of evidence gathered during investigation, it was concluded by the C.B.I. that the applicant had prepared/got prepared fake and forged ST Certificate dated 13.5.1979. The Central Bureau of Investigation, vide its letter dated 15.2.2010, while forwarding a copy of the said charge sheet, drew the attention of respondent no.2 to O.M.No.142/5/84-AVD-I dated 20.6.1986 issued by the DoP&T and CVC OM dated 25.9.2000 for further necessary action as deemed fit.
9.2 Thereafter, respondent no.2 placed the applicant under suspension, vide order dated 23.3.2010 (Annexure A/10)which reads thus:
WHEREAS a case against Sh.Prabhu Nath Prasad s/o Sh.Shyam Sunder Prasad, Pump Driver, Empl.Code No.20010071 C/o EE (E&M) W& S South-I, in respect of a criminal offence has been registered with Central Bureau of India, Anti Corruption Branch, New Delhi, vide FIR No.RC-DAI-2009-A-0051 dated 11.11.2009 u/s 420, 468, 471 & 473 IPC.
AND WHEREAS the Charge-sheet has also been filed against the said Sh.Prabhu Nath Prasad s/o Sh.Shyam Sunder Prasad, Pump Driver by the CBI, before the Honble Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, under Section 420 & 471 IPC.
NOW, THEREFORE, pending final decision of court of law in the above said criminal case, the undersigned in exercise of powers conferred by Sub Rule (1) (b) of Rule (10) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as applicable to the employees of Delhi Jal Board, hereby places the said Sh.Prabhu Nath Prasad S/o Sh.Shyam Sunder Prasad, Pump Driver under suspension with immediate effect.
It is further ordered that during the period of suspension/till this order remains in force, the headquarter of Sh.Prabhu Nath Prasad S/o Sh.Shyam Sunder Prasad, Pump Driver will be the office of E.E.(E&M) W&S S-I and the said Sh.Prabhu Nath Prasad S/o Sh.Shyam Sunder Prasad, Pump Driver shall not leave the headquarter without obtaining the prior permission of the Competent Authority. However, he will be entitled to draw the subsistence allowance, as admissible under the rules, during the period of suspension. 9.3 In terms of Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the order of suspension of the applicant was reviewed by the competent authority before expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension from time to time on the basis of the recommendations of the Review Committee and the period of suspension was extended up to 90 days on each occasion, vide orders dated 11.5.2010, 10.8.2010, 8.11.2010, 4.2.2011, 5.5.2011, 3.8.2011, 1.11.2011, 30.4.2012 and 25.7.2012 which were duly communicated to the applicant. The applicant has not pleaded that the order of his suspension was not reviewed by the competent authority before expiry of 90 days from the effective date of extended period of suspension, vide order dated 25.7.2012 or thereafter. Therefore, the order of suspension of the applicant cannot said to have been rendered invalid in terms of Rule 10(7) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
10. Rule 10(1)(b) of the CCS (CCA)Rules,1965 prescribes that the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. In view of this clear statutory provision and in view of the fact that the Central Bureau of Investigation has filed a charge sheet before the competent court against the applicant alleging commission of offences under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs letter dated 22.10.1964, relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, does not support the case of the applicant for quashing the suspension order or the subsequent orders issued by the competent authority extending the period of his suspension.
11. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that when the respondent-Delhi Jal Board had verified the ST Certificate produced by the applicant at the time of initial appointment in 1998 and had found nothing adverse, the respondent-departmental authorities ought not to have placed him under suspension solely on the basis of submission of the charge sheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the year 2009, i.e., after expiry of more than a decade and therefore, his suspension is unjustified. This contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is without any substance. The re-verification of the ST Certificate and investigation into the matter by the Central Bureau of Investigation took place in compliance with the direction issued by the Honble Delhi High Court, as referred to earlier. Besides, during investigation it was found by the Central Bureau of Investigation that the concerned authority denied the genuineness of the said ST certificate and that the applicant had prepared/got prepared the same in his name for his personal benefit of securing employment as a Pump Driver in Delhi Jal Board.
12. The direction of the Honble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patils case(supra) relates to streamlining the procedure for issuance of social status certificates and their scrutiny and approval, etc.. In the instant case, the C.B.I. has registered the FIR and, after conducting investigation in accordance with law, has filed the charge sheet in the competent court against the applicant alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patils case (supra) does not come to the aid of the applicant.
13. In Akhil Bharatiya Kharia-Nonia Vikas Mahasanghs case (supra), no direction was issued by the Honble High Court of Patna to the departmental authorities not to take coercive steps against the members of the petitioner-association where after filing of the FIR and investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the ST Certificates are found to be forged and charge sheets are submitted before the competent court of law. There was also no direction issued by the Honble High Court to the departmental authorities not to place the members of the petitioner-association consequent upon filing of charge sheets by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the court of law against them alleging commission of offences under Sections 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
14. In Suresh Prasads case (supra), during pendency of criminal case, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the applicant. The charge in both the criminal case as well as in the departmental proceedings was identical based on the same set of facts with identical witnesses and identical documents Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. (JT 1999 (2) SC 4681) and other judicial pronouncements and in view of the decision of the Honble High Court of Patna in Akhil Bharatiya Kharia-Nonia Vikas Mahasanghs case(supra), the Tribunal quashed the departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant in that case. But in the instant case, no departmental proceeding was initiated against the applicant. Besides, as already noted, after investigation the Central Bureau of Investigation found that the concerned authority denied the genuineness of the ST Certificate produced by the applicant at the time of his initial appointment and that the applicant had prepared/got prepared the S.T.Certificate in his name for the benefit of securing employment as a Pump Driver in the Delhi Jal Board. Accordingly, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed the charge sheet in the competent court against the applicant. Therefore, the decision in Suresh Prasads case (supra) does not help the case of the applicant in any way.
15. In the light of the above discussions, we hold that the applicant has not been able to make out a case for the reliefs claimed by him in the O.A. Thus, the O.A. being devoid of merit is liable to be dismisssed.
16. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (ASHOK KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AN