Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ajit Tamolia vs Accountant General (A And E) Assam ... on 21 November, 2024
1
Item No. 04/ C-5
O.A. No. 4528/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 4528/2024
This the day of 21st November 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Ajit Tamolia
Aged about 41 years,
S/o Sh. Babu Lal Tamolia
R/oRZ-36A/4, Raj Nagar-I,Palam, New Delhi-110077
Mob. No. 9871960331
Post: Senior Auditor
Group - B (NG)
Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal with Mr. Shakib Malik with
Mr. Nikhil Pawar, Mr. Pradeep Kmar and Ms. Tanya Rose)
V/s
1. Comptroller & Auditor General of India (CAG)
Through itsAssistant Comptroller & Auditor General (N)-I9, Deen
Dayal Upadhyaya Marg,New Delhi-110124
Email: [email protected]
2. Director General of Audit (Railway Commercial)
Through its Sr. Audit Officer (Admn.)
Office of the Director General of Audit (DGA)
4, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg,
New Delhi-110002
Email: [email protected]
3. Director (Railway Commercial)
Office of the Director General of Audit (DGA)
4, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg,
New Delhi-110002
Email: [email protected]
4. Director General of Audit (Shipping)
Office of the Director General of Audit (Shipping)
Plot No. C-2, G.N. Block,
6th& 7thFloor, Mumbai-400051
2
Item No. 04/ C-5
O.A. No. 4528/2024
Email: [email protected]
5. Principal Director of Audit (Infrastructure)
Office of Principal Director of Audit (Infrastructure)
A-Wing, 3rd Floor, I.P. Bhawan,
New Delhi-110002
Email: [email protected]
6. Director General of Commercial Audit, Mumbai
Office of Director General of Commercial Audit
8th Floor, Audit Bhawan,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400051
Email: [email protected]
7. Dr. Nilotpal Goswami
Director General (Railway Commercial)
C/o Office of the Director General of Audit (DGA)
4, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg,
New Delhi-110002
Email:[email protected]
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Ayushman Aeron for Mr. S.S. Hooda)
3
Item No. 04/ C-5
O.A. No. 4528/2024
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) By virtue of the present OA, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:
(i) "Set aside the impugned Office Order No. 91
dated 18.11.2024, passed by Director (RC), Office of the Director General of Audit, Railway Commercial, Delhi, whereby the applicant is repatriated from the Office of the Director General of Audit (RC), Delhi on 18.11.2024 (A.N.) with instruction to join his parent office O/o the Director General of Audit (Shipping), Mumbai;
(ii) Allow the present Original Application with costs in favour of the applicant; and
(iii) Pass any other Order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice and in the favour of the applicant."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the respondents have prematurely repatriated the applicant vide the impugned office order dated 18.11.2024, which is in violation of the DOP&T OM as a mandatory notice of three months is required to be given before such repatriation. He further relies upon the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the matter of Madhav Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Ors., in OA No. 2766/207, paras 14 and 15 of which read as under:
"14. Undisputedly, the applicant has been repatriated prematurely without giving him or to his parent organization any advance notice as contemplated in paragraph 9 of the DoP&T O.M. dated 17.06.2010. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, advance notice to a deputationist before ordering his repatriation prematurely is a mandatory requirement, which the respondents have failed to observe in this case. The averments made in the counter reply of the respondents also make it clear that the premature repatriation was not simplicitor. The respondents have given specific reasons, although not recorded in the impugned order, as to dissatisfactory performance of the 4 Item No. 04/ C-5 O.A. No. 4528/2024 applicant, his actions amounting to insubordination and indiscipline. Taking all these things into consideration, we are of the view that the impugned Annexure A-1 order is not only illegal but stigmatic as well. Such an order should not have been passed without following the principles of natural justice as well as without adhering to the stipulated conditions in paragraph 9 of the DoP&T O.M. dated 17.06.2010. The judgments of this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble Apex Court cited in paragraph (7) supra, also support this viewpoint.
15. In the conspectus of discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, the O.A. is allowed. Impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 16.08.2017 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to allow the applicant to rejoin BPRD within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The period from 14.08.2017, the date when the applicant was relieved by Annexure A-1 order, and till he rejoins the BPRD shall be treated as period spent on duty. The respondents, however, have liberty to repatriate the applicant to his parent department, i.e., BSF, by following the due process as contemplated in DoP&T O.M. (ibid) and keeping in mind the judgments of this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble Apex Court cited in paragraph (7) above."
3. He further relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Madan Lal Saini and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. in WP (C) No. 13097/2022 and in the matter of Shri Rajkumar Vs National Human Rights Commission in WP (C) No. 451/2021.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant has also highlighted that, under normal circumstances, the period of applicant's deputation is set to end on 13.03.2025, and, therefore, presses for interim relief.
5. On advance notice, Mr. Ayushman Aeron enters appearance on behalf of the respondents and raises objections regarding the grant of interim relief at this stage. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the OM dated 11.02.2015 is not applicable in the facts and 5 Item No. 04/ C-5 O.A. No. 4528/2024 circumstances of the present case, as he draws attention to para 3 of the said OM, which reads as under:-
"The matter has been considered by the competent authority and it has been decided that the requests of the officials, who are already confirmed, may be considered for deputation in IA&AD offices located at the desired place of posting. Before considering deputation of such officials, the facts about the employment of the spouse may be verified from the concerned employers (cadre controlling authorities). The deputations in such cases will however not be treated as in public interest."
6. He contends that the extension of deputation for a period of seven years on spouse grounds cannot be equated with that of public interest, and the present order is rightly passed in light of para 3.2 (C) of the OM dated 17.06.2010 issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, DOP&T i.e., "Temporary appointment made on the basis of personal requests of employees" considering the rules concerning deputation.
7. Relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced herein below:-
"Shri Ajit Tamolia, Sr. Auditor who is on deputation to this office from 14.03.2017 is hereby repatriated from this office on 18.11.2024 (A.N.) with instruction to join his parent office O/o the Director General of Audit (Shipping), Mumbai."
8. On instructions, the learned counsel for the respondents states that, pursuant to the office order, the applicant has already been struck off from the strength of office of Director General of Audit (Railway Commercial), however, he is unable to highlight any office order relieving the applicant as on date.
6
Item No. 04/ C-5 O.A. No. 4528/2024
9. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant highlights that, pursuant to the impugned order, the applicant immediately made a detailed representation on 19.11.2024 in the form of a legal notice.
10. Be that as it may. The learned counsel for the applicant further highlights that an application for leave was also submitted on 11.11.2024, which reads as under:-
"Subject: Application for leave-reg Sir.
It is to state that due to some recent events occurred in the office in the last week. I am feeling mentally traumatized therefore I seek leave w.c.f. 11.11.24 to 14.11.24 Suffixing Holiday on 15.11.2024, Saturday & Sunday on 16.11.24 & 17.11.24."
11. Pursuant to the aforequoted leave application, a memo dated 13.11.2024 has been issued by the respondents, stating as under:-
"Subject: Reply to the Memo No. DGA/RC/22-61/Admn/2020- 21/817 dtd. 13.11.24.
Please refer to your Memorandum dated 13.11.2024 issued vide File No. DGA/RC/22- 61/ADMN/2020-21/817 in respect of my Leave Application for the period 11.11.2024 το 14.11.2024, In this regard it is stated that I have applied for Earned Leave on account of mental trauma being suffered by me due to the incident occurred in the office in the preceding week. It is stated that in the said incident, I had been asked to do 'some' work which is beyond the scope of my official duties and to which my inner conscious did not allow. When I expressed my inability to do the said work, I was put under pressure to do the same. Since, I have been posted at your esteemed office on deputation basis the sword of repatriation always hangs on my head and sometimes work as a threat. In such a situation refusal to any senior officer to do 'any work' even if the same is not in relation to discharge of my official duties, leads to immense amount of stress and anxiety causing sleepless nights. Since, I was put under pressure, to do the work I am not supposed to do in my official capacity, it caused immense amount of mental traurna and I was left with no other option than to go on leave.
In view of above it is requested to sanction my aforesaid leave as the same is for valid reasons mentioned above. It is also stated that I wish to continue my leave till 17.11.2024 suffixing 7 Item No. 04/ C-5 O.A. No. 4528/2024 Friday, Saturday and Sunday (being holidays) and shall my join duties on 18.11.2024."
12. We note that the applicant made a representation/ in the form of a legal notice on 19.11.2024. Given the factual matrix of the case as highlighted above, and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the present OA by directing the Competent Authority amongst the respondents to dispose of the representation which is in the form of a legal notice dated 19.11.2024, within a period of six weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
13. Needless to say, the principles of natural justice shall be followed by the Competent Authority amongst the respondents while deciding the representation/legal notice dated 19.11.2024. Until such time, the office order dated 18.11.2024 shall remain in abeyance.
14. This order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions urged by the respective parties, which may be raised by them at a later stage, if required.
15. All pending applications stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/arti/