Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Vijay Kumar vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary ... on 5 March, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW. ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 325 OF 2011 Reserved on 12.2.2013 Pronounced on 5.3.2013 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINGH, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. D.C.LAKHA, MEMBER-A Vijay Kumar, aged about 43 years son of Shri Mohan, resident of D-3/256, Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow226010. . . . . . . . .Applicant By Advocate: Shri Ashok Kumar. Versus 1. Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Department of Information Technology, Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, New Delhi-110003. 2. Director General, National Informatics Centre-HQ Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Information Technology, A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 3. State Informatics Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Information Technology, NIC-UP State Unit, 6th Floor, Yojana Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. 4. Dr. B.K. Gairola, Director General, National Informatics Centre-HQ, Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Information Technology, A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 5. Shri S.B. Singh, State Informatics Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, NIC-UP State Unit, 6th Floor, Yojana Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. . . . . . . . . . Respondents By Advocate: Shri S.P. Singh for Shri R. Mishra. O R D E R
(DELIVERED BY:- MR. D.C.LAKHA, MEMBER-A This application has been instituted for the following relief(s):-
(i) This Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 06.08.2009 filed as Annexure No. 1 being illegal and against the law.
(ii) This Honble Tribunal may further be pleased to order or direct to the Respondents to allow the applicant to join his duty and release all his pay & all admissible allowances according to law.
(iii) This Honble Tribunal may further be pleased to allow the application with costs and special costs.
(iv) Any other relief, order or direction as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case may also be passed.
2. Factual matrix germane leading to filing of the present O.A. are that the applicant, belonging to Scheduled Caste community, was inducted into the service on 18.3.1992 as Scientific Officer/Engineer Grade SB & District Informatics Officer and after successful training he was transferred from NIC Bihar State Unit Patna to NIC District Unit, Saran. The respondent nos. 2 to 5 working under respondent no.1, are providing support to all other Government organizations viz. Honble Supreme Court, Honble High Courts, NHRC, State HRCs, SC/ST Commission, D.M. Office, DGP, IG Police etc. for computerization including data support, data maintenance, maintenance of all the computer systems and its infrastructure. The applicant was receiving complaints from the concerned offices about non-functioning of computer systems. The applicant informed about these complaints to his immediate controlling officer i.e. respondent no.5. The respondent no.5 got annoyed with the applicant thinking how a subordinate officer that too from a lower caste had courage to speak to him much less complaining about him regarding his functioning and, therefore, respondent no.5 called the applicant in his office and instead of taking measures to improve the system, he made sarcastic comments about his belonging to lower caste. The applicant was deeply hurt about the comments which are per-se unconstitutional. The matter was brought to the notice of respondent no.2 vide letter dated 27.11.1995 (Annexure-2). In this letter, about misbehavior of respondent no.5, the applicant wrote that I was called by him at NIC-BSU, Patna on dated 25.11.95 to discuss office related problems, but instead of discussing office related problems, he humiliated and harassed me on the caste basis. He abused me using words Chamar Sale, Reserved category etc and has threatened to do anything with me, and also to stop me in the review upto ten years. Earlier also he has misbehaved with me about which I have already informed you. Hence, he is creating Casteism and untouchability in the department. The respondent no.5 threatened the applicant that he would spoil his ACR for atleast ten years and he shall not let him continue in service and he will make sure that either the applicant resigns the service or he will make him resign either by hook and crook.
3. In the year 1996, he was due for promotion, but due to his complaints against his immediate senior officer-respondent no.5 vide Annexure-2, who was supposed to forward his Appraisal report to the Promotion Committee, he could not get his promotion because respondent no.5 did not forward his appraisal report. Thereupon the applicant sent another communication by e.mail and then vide his letter dated 30.1.2006 to respondent no.2 (Annexure-3), seeking redressal of his grievances. Another officer Sri A.P. Sahay, who was directly working under the applicant, was told to get his transfer away from the place of the applicant otherwise his service career aspect would be adversely affected just because he was working under the applicant. This feeling was expressed by Sri Sahay in his letter dated 24.1.1996 (Annexure-4). Subsequently,the applicant had been sending the communications to higher authorities regarding atrocities based on caste and seeking justice by various letters dated 20.2.1996, 4.3.1996, 16.5.1996, 22.4.1996, 16.8.1996 and 3.12.1996 (Annexure-5). In spite of complaints and reminders, neither the grievances of the applicant were redressed nor any action was taken against respondent no.5, but the applicant was transferred to Lucknow by means of order dated 31.5.1996.
4. The applicant had become due for his next higher rank promotion for which he was also called for interview. The applicant was advised/forced to withdraw the complaints made against respondent no.5; otherwise the applicant would not be cleared for his promotion even this year. This was also reported by the applicant vide letter dated 6.1.1997. His ACRs for the years 1992-95 were not completed and his application for another department was not forwarded. When posted at Hon. High Court, Lucknow Bench, the applicant informed regarding bad functioning of LOBIS and y2K, a computer related problem to the immediate superior officers and also Respondents No. 2 and 3. But instead of solving the problem, the applicant was blamed for mis-handling regarding the failure of the Computer system. The applicant was called in by respondent No. 5 in his office where sarcastic comments about his belonging to lower caste were made and was forced to put up his papers for resignation. This was informed to the respondent No. 4 by letter dated 22.2.2007 by the applicant (A-11). During leave period from 30.8.2007 to 9.5.2008, when he was away from the duty place, the applicant was transferred to Latehar (Jharkhand) vide transfer order dated 10.9.2007. It is submitted that the applicant has been transferred four times since his joining in 1992 and his ACRs (1992 to 1996) were spoiled. Even his request under RTI Act for providing the copies of ACRs of the applicant was not acceded to. The applicant has given the names of six officers (para 4.33 of the O.A.) who have not been transferred and are stationed at Lucknow for more than two decades. The respondent No.5 also forced the applicant to write resignation papers on 28.8.2008. In his letter dated 30.3.2009 addressed to Additional Director General (Law & Order), Government of U.P., Lucknow with endorsements to Honble Dr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India, New Delhi, Honble Sri A. Raja, Minister of C&IT, GOI, New Delhi, Honble NCSC, New Delhi, Honble Km. Mayawati, Chief Minister Government of U.P., Lucknow, Secretary, Department of IT, Ministry of C& IT, GOI, New Delhi, DGP, GoUP, Lucknow and Dr. B.K. Gairole, Director General, NIC-HQ, New Delhi, the applicant requested for appropriate action for safety of his family due to resignation, caste, discrimination and threat to their lives because of caste prejudice mind of Sri S.B. Singh, SIO, NIC, UPSU, Lucknow and his associates (Annexure-16). Thereafter, due to all these, he has put up his resignation letter dated 23.4.2009 addressed to Honble President of India. He also informed regarding his harassment to the Director General, NIC, H.Q. New Delhi vide letter dated 1.4.2009. Vide Office Memorandum dated 5.5.2009 the applicant was informed that the resignation letter dated 23.4.2009 (A-18) cannot be accepted as it should be submitted through controlling officer and should not be conditional. In reply thereof he sent letter dated 22.6.2009 (Annexure-20) addressed to Secretary (IT) on the basis of which his resignation was accepted on 28.7.2009 w.e.f. 17.7.2009 (Annexure-23), which was addressed to the applicant was received by him on 31.7.2009 vide Annexure RA-10 enclosed with the written arguments. Its notification was issued on 6.8.2009 (Annexure no.1 to the O.A.). Various representations including the one dated 6.8.2009 (page 103) to H.E. The President of India, with copy to Hon. CJI, Hon. P.M., Hon. Minister of State for Communications and the Cabinet Secretary stating that I have sent my representation for refusal from accepting the office order dated 28.7.2009 and withdrawal of my resignation on 4.8.2009 (page 102) to the concerned authorities for immediate and necessary action. He also moved the representation dated 29.10.2009 (page 109) to Shri A. Raja, Minister of Communication & I.T. with copy to Minister of State and Secretary, DIT, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, for withdrawal of notification dated 6.8.2009 (Acceptance of resignation), representation dated 23.12.2010 (page 112)addressed to Secretary, and D.G., Ministry of Communication and I.T., New Delhi requesting for de-notification of the notification dated 6.8.2009 and the representation dated 15.4.2011 (page 113)made to Secretary, Ministry of Communication and I.T. for de-notification of notification dated 6.8.2009 (A-21) for withdrawal of his resignation which bore no fruitful result. The State Minister who has accepted the resignation has no authority to accept the resignation as is evident from the Annexures A-22 and A-23. The SC/ST Commission gave its report on 20.12.2010 stating that it has no further jurisdiction to conduct the matter after the same was acted upon by the respondents. The writ petition filed by the applicant before the Honble High Court was disposed of with the direction to approach Honble Tribunal (A-24). Hence, the O.A.
5. On notice, the respondents have filed the Counter affidavit, denying the averments made in the OA. It is further stated that the applicant applied for VRS vide his letter dated 14.11.2008, which could not be acceded to because the applicant had not completed 20 years of regular service (R-2). Regarding the resignation submitted on 23.4.2009 addressed to Honble President of India, he was advised vide O.M. dated 5.5.2009 to submit it through proper channel and unconditional (R-3 and R-4). The applicant then submitted (resignation) letter addressed to the Secretary DIT on 22.6.2009 (Annexure no.20). The competent authority vide order dated 28.7.2009 and notification dated 6.8.2009 accepted the resignation of the applicant w.e.f. 17.7.2009 submitted vide letter dated 22.6.2009 (R5). The allegations of resignation obtained by force, duress and compulsion after manhandling the applicant with threat of life are unjustified, unsustainable and are not maintainable. Since his transfer vide order dated 10.9.2007 from Lucknow to Latehar (Jharkhand) the applicant has been un-authorizedly absent and failed to report for duty at his new place of posting though he has been relieved from Lucknow. It is submitted that the respondent No.5 is a senior-level officer, overall in-charge of state unit and the complaints, if any by the user department will be made to respondent No 5 or respondent No.2 and not to the applicant as claimed by him. Therefore, the allegation of complaints being made by various departments to the applicant is baseless. All the allegations of threat, manhandling, spoiling the ACRs, non promotion on the basis of personal bias and malafides have been denied stating that the applicant is in the habit of making such illegal complaints with prejudiced mind. He has been given the higher grades as said in para 21 of the O.A. There is no scope for any discrimination of officers of whatever caste and gender they are. Regarding various unsubstantiated complaints, it is stated that the same were investigated. It is also stated that more than 3 applications of the applicant were forwarded by the respondents for employment or appointment in other departments during 1997 to 2000. On the allegations made by the applicant against an Advocate inquiry was got conducted by the Honble High Court and inquiry report was submitted by Shri S.K. I. Naqvi, Joint Registrar, which shows false allegation and misusing his caste by the applicant. A complaint was received from Shri Pradeep Kumar, OSD Honble High Court Lucknow Bench regarding absence of the applicant without intimation and negligence in his duty (Annexure-R-6 and R-7). Many representations as mentioned in para 2 above were made by the applicant mentioning harassment and humiliation against the applicant which is his habit. The applicant was not a lone person who was transferred but alongwith him six more officers were also transferred. It is submitted that the applicant has been claiming for his transfer on medical ground without attaching any medical certificate regarding neurological problem of his wife. The applicant was transferred from Lucknow to Ambedkar Nagar after receipt of various complaints from District Magistrate and other officers regarding negligence of his work (Annexure-R-A). The complaint made to the commission for SC/ST was investigated by duly constituted committee and the allegations of harassment of the applicant and his family members made against the senior officers were found baseless and unsubstantiated vide report dated 25.8.2009 (Annexure-R-9). Firstly, the resignation which was conditional was not acceded to, but later on when it was sent through proper channel and was unconditional, it was accepted because it is not in the interest of the Govt. to retain unwilling Govt. servant. As the applicant was transferred from Lucknow, he was informed that after expiry of his leave period he could not be allowed to join at Lucknow. Regarding the competence of the authority accepting the resignation it is stated that the officers below and including the level of JAG and director of the Department, their matters are decided at the level of Minister of State for Communication and Information as has been done in the case of the applicant. The grounds taken in the OA are not tenable and hence the OA is liable to be dismissed lacking in merit.
6. Rejoinder affidavit by the applicant is filed almost reiterating the averments made in the O.A.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record/pleadings. The learned counsel for the applicant, while arguing the case has laid much stress on the point that in a caste ridden society like ours, insulting remarks and overtures cannot be ruled out. This happened in this case. The applicant being a member of Scheduled Caste Community was harassed, and ill treated which led to submission of his resignation, that too under duress, narrating his grievance to the higher authorities in the hope that the higher authorities would consider his case sympathetically. But, to the utter surprise of the applicant, the higher authorities directed the applicant vide letter dated 5.5.2009 to submit his unconditional resignation. By his reply dated 22.6.2009, the applicant again stated about the caste prejudice of the respondents against him and forcing him to resign. That is why he had to state under compulsion that in the letter dated 23.4.2009 he did not put any condition. The counsel has contended that when the respondents treated his earlier letter dated 23.4.2009 on resignation as conditional how the letter dated 22.6.2009 could be treated as unconditional when the same circumstances of compulsion behind the resignation were given in this letter also. It is clear that the respondents instead of looking into the grievances of the applicant, had already made up their mind to get rid of him. At no point of time the authorities tried to ponder over the compelling circumstances and reasons for submitting the resignation by the applicant conditionally. It was further argued that the higher authorities turned a deaf ear to the innumerable representations of the applicant and never tried to sort out the grievances of the applicant and the applicant was continuously humiliated on the basis of caste. No efforts were made by the respondents even to enquire into the complaints made by the applicant against respondent No.5. It was only when the matter was seized of by the SC/ST Commission that some enquiry was got conducted by the department, that too by the two officers of the department. This enquiry can hardly be treated as impartial and trustworthy because the departmental officers, in all probability, would not put up report against another senior departmental officer (i.e. Respondent No. 5). Had the applicant not approached the SC/ST Commission, respondents would never have got conducted any enquiry even in this manner. It was a duty cast upon the higher ups to enquire into the sensitive complaints of the applicant and conduct an impartial enquiry even by an outside agency, if so warranted,, which has not been done. So, the applicant was compelled and forced to submit his resignation. It was further argued that before the notification dated 6.8.2009 about acceptance of the resignation the applicant applied vide letter dated 4.8.2009 (Annexure-21) for withdrawal of the same, which should have been considered as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following case laws in support of his case, which we have also perused:-
(i) D.N. Ramana Reddy Vs. Union of India & Others (Writ Petition No. 5593 of 1998 decided on 21.6.2007).
(ii) Rajiv Singh Sengar Vs. Union of India & Others (Writ Petition No. 1461 (S/B) of 2011 decided on 13.3.2012)
(iii) Amit Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others (O.A. No. 282 of 2010 CAT Lucknow Bench).
8. The learned counsel for the respondents has, on the other hand argued harping on the same point that the applicant was in the habit of making complaints against the authorities. There were many complaints against the applicant. The complaints made by the applicant were investigated. In more than three applications, the request for appointment in other departments were forwarded during 1997-2000 as averred in the CA. Only one application was not forwarded/withheld for a short period as said in para 22 of the CA. It is further argued that the enquiry was got conducted by the two officers of the department at the instance of the Commission for SC/ST and the allegations of harassment of the applicant and his family members made against the senior officers were found baseless and unsubstantiated. It was further argued that the conditional resignation submitted by the applicant could not be accepted as per rules when the resignation addressed to competent authority and was submitted unconditionally, the same was accepted. It has also been contended on behalf of the respondents that since the resignation of the applicant has already been accepted by the competent authority and the same has been accepted and executed, the request for withdrawal of the same could not be acceded to under rules.
9. Having heard both the sides, we have given thoughtful consideration to the pleadings of the parties and the oral arguments advanced by both the counsel. We have also perused the written arguments filed by both the sides. As per the averments of the respondents, an enquiry was conducted by the Joint Registrar of the Hon. High Court regarding certain complaints made by the applicant which shows false allegation and misusing his caste by the applicant. There is no such observation in the enquiry report mentioned above and it appears to be the creation of the biased mind of the respondents. The respondents have cleverly tried to escape last part (Annexure R-6, page 32 of counter reply) of the same report which reads as under:-
From the statements recorded during the enquiry, it is evident that Sri Vijay Kumar has not been supported by any other person and, therefore, his statement remains uncorroborated, but it can not be ignored that as to why an Engineer of the NIC, who has no concern with the working of the High Court, will falsely complain against an Advocate of the High Court, unless there is some substance in the matter. The above report goes to show that the allegations made by the applicant had some substance which was required to be examined and enquired into thoroughly by the competent authority even by going in for an enquiry by an outside agency if so warranted.
10. Moreover, the application of the applicant for Remote Sensing Application Centre, U.P. was not forwarded to other departments on the ground that his application for Scientist SD.cannot be forwardedthat you have given a complaint against Sri S.B. Singh, SIO (Bihar) which is being investigating by T.A. Khan and his report of investigation is still awaited. (Annexure7, page 45). It is not understandable as to why the application for other department was not forwarded by the respondents. There is no provision under the rules for retaining the application and not forwarding the same only on the ground of pending complaint against the applicant unless sustained in the enquiry leading to some substantiated misconduct.
11. In the Counter reply the respondents have stated that the representations submitted by the applicant regarding the allegation of harassment were got investigated by the respondents, but no such enquiry report has been submitted and annexed with the C.A. The respondents have repeatedly alleged that the applicant was in the habit of making false complaints against the higher ups on the caste basis. But no effort appears to have been made for appropriate enquiry by an independent Agency. Apparently, this kind of attitude was/is not justified. The complaints regarding the alleged humiliation involving the so called low caste were not taken seriously, especially when it was leading to a situation where the applicant had to tender the resignation. The respondents represent the Government and Government being the model employer, in a welfare state like ours is supposed to provide congenial atmosphere and environment for all the employees to discharge their duties without fear and favour protecting their rights under the Constitution and other laws. In this case the conduct and response of the respondents on the complaints of the applicant, has been far from being that of a model employer i.e. the State.
12. The respondents have contended that the complaint made to the SC/ST Commission was investigated by the duly constituted committee, but no proof of such committee, having been constituted, has been given. The matter was investigated by the two Technical Directors of the Department, which might be under the influence of the higher authorities. The matter being of sensitive nature i.e. alleged discrimination on caste basis should have been investigated by some independent agency.
13. Taking in view the circumstances and facts of this case and also after hearing both sides two issues emerge for decision as under:-
(a) Whether the order of the respondents to accept the resignation of the applicant is legally sustainable; and
(b) Whether the resignation could be allowed to be withdrawn as per rules.
Addressing to the first issue, we are obliged to rely on the ratio in judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Prabha Arti Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2003 SCC (L&S) 118 wherein it has been held that . ..To constitute a resignation, it must be unconditional and with an intention to operate as such. At best, as observed by this Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandra Iyer it may amount to a threatened offer more on account of exasperation, to resign on account of a feeling of frustration born out of an idea that she was being harassed unnecessarily but not, at any rate, amounting to a resignation, actual and simple. In this case, a reference has also been made to the case of Moti Ram Vs. Param Dev reported in 1993 (2) SCC 735-36 in which term resignation has been held to connote in the following manner:-
16. As pointed out by this Court, resignation means the spontaneous relinquishment of ones own right and in relation to an office, it connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. It has been held that in the general juristic sense, in order to constitute a complete and operative resignation there must be the intention to give up or relinquish the office and the concomitant act of its relinquishment. In the instant case, in his first letter of resignation dated 23.4.2009 the applicant, addressed to Honble President of India, he stated about the compelling circumstances and harassment on the basis of caste leading to his compulsion to resign. This letter was not accepted by the respondents and the applicant was advised to submit his resignation through his controlling officer and it should be unconditional (letter dated 5.5.2009). Reply was given by the applicant vide letter dated 22.6.2009 addressed to Honble President of India as well as to the Secretary, DIT, Government of India, Ministry of Communication stating that I am being forced and threatened continuously to join at NIC District Centre Latehar, Jharkhand so that they can be able to fulfill their wishes accordingly or to resign from government service. In the last para of this letter, the applicant reiterated the same circumstances, in brief, in verbatim of letter dated 23.4.2009, which reads as under:-
Therefore, I pray you kindly to accept my resignation immediately to save our lives and further humiliation, harassment and caste discrimination anymore, if we have any constitutional right as other citizens of India have, being a democratic country even to live being members of Scheduled Caste after 61 years of Independence and obliged me, for the same my family and I will be very much grateful to you. If the letters dated 23.4.2009 and 22.6.2009 are read between lines in juxta-position to each other, one would certainly reach the conclusion (in essence) that if the letter of resignation of the applicant dated 23.4.2009 is treated by the respondents as conditional subsequent letter dated 22.6.2009 cannot be treated as unconditional by any stretch of imagination because the tone and tenor of both letters are the same. But this fact has not been considered by due application of mind by the respondents while accepting the resignation vide letter dated 28.7.2009 leading to notification dated 6.8.2009. The resignation of the applicant was not at all spontaneous and intentional. Since the conditions and circumstances compelling him to submit his resignation have been put in both letters, the resignation cannot be treated as unconditional in view of judgments of Honble Supreme Court (supra). It is, thus, clear that the order of the respondents accepting unconditional resignation of the applicant is not legally sustainable.
On the second issue, it is noteworthy to mention that the letter of the applicant dated 4.8.2009 for withdrawal of his resignation, receipt of which has not been denied by the respondents, appears to have escaped contention of the respondents to consider and to communicate to the applicant on the action taken on this letter. Similarly, the letter of the applicant dated 6.8.2009 about withdrawal of his resignation has been dealt with by the respondents without reference to the relevant rules and the reply to the same has been given vide letter dated 23.11.2009. Similarly, letter dated 16.12.2009 (Page 110 of the O.A.) the representation of the applicant dated 29.10.2009 (Page 109 of the O.A.) for withdrawal of notification of resignation has also been disposed of in a cursory manner and by a non-speaking order. Likewise, the representation of the applicant dated 23.12.2010 (Page 112 of the O.A.) has been disposed of vide order dated 25.1.2011 (part of A-21, page 111), a bare perusal of replies, to the repeated requests of the applicant, from the respondents show that the matter has not been considered in proper perspective, taking into consideration the circumstances under which applicant had to submit his conditional resignation as provided under Rule 26 (4) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which reads as under:
4. The appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest on the following conditions, namely:-
(i) that the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation.
(ii) that during the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from which the request for withdrawal was made, the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper;
(iii) that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than ninety days.
(iv) that the post, which was vacated by the Government servant on the acceptance of his resignation or any other comparable post, is available. The respondents were under obligation as per the above rule position to consider the representations for withdrawal of his resignation, even if accepted, regarding which he had to submit under the alleged compelling circumstances, arising out of continuous insulting remarks against him by some of the superior officers on the basis of his being a member of Scheduled Caste. During the adjudication it has been found that this relevant rule has not been invoked at all to consider his case till the filing of this O.A. To the contrary, the consistent stand taken by the respondents has been that since the resignation has been accepted, the request for withdrawal cannot be considered.
14. In view of the foregoing facts, circumstances & analysis of the case, we hold that the O.A. succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 28.7.2009 and notification dated 6.8.2009 are not found legally tenable on the anvil of principles of natural justice and relevant rules. Accordingly, the order dated 28.7.2009 and notification dated 6.8.2009 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the applicant to join his duties at Latehar (Jharkhand) where he was last transferred vide order dated 10.9.2007 within a month from the date of this order. His period of absence w.e.f. 22.9.2007 as mentioned in Annexure-1 as also the intervening period from the date of acceptance of the resignation of the applicant till rejoining as per this order would be dealt with as per rules. The respondents are also directed to get an impartial enquiry conducted afresh regarding the complaints made by the applicant time to time. The compliance of these two directions shall be ensured within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(D.C. Lakha) (Justice Alok K Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
Girish/-
14