Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Phool Kali Sharma vs Chief Post Master General Up Circle on 29 May, 2025
(Reserved on 21.5.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
Original Application No. 330/00852/2012
Pronounced on 29th day of MAY, 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Ghanshyam Sharma S/o Late Ram Dev Sharma, R/o 160/1H/2, Ram
Chandrapuram, Salori, Post Teliyarganj, District Allahabad (Dead).
1/1 Phool Kali Sharma w/o Late Ghanshyam Sharma
1/2 Rupesh Sharma S/o Late Ghanshyam Sharma
1/3 Mukesh Sharma S/o Late Ghanshyam Sharma
1/4 Devesh Sharma Late Ghanshyam Sharma
All resident of House No. 160/1H/2, Ram Chandrapuram, Salori,
Post Teliyarganj, District Allahabad./
.......Applicants
By Advocate: Shri M.K. Upadhyay
Versus
1. Union of India through the Chief Post Master General, U.P
Circle, Lucknow.
2. The Post Master General, Allahabad Region, Allahabad.
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad Division,
Allahabad.
Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Ram Kumar Verma
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) By means of present O.A., the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
"(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to quash the orders dated 06.08.2008, 17.4.2009 and 23.05.2011 passed by the respondents (Annexure No. A-1, 2 & 3 to this Original Application) with all consequential benefits.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 2
(ii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion, increments and all other service benefits.
(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award cost of the original application in favour of the applicant".
2. During the pendency of this OA, the original applicant Sri Ghanshyam Sharma passed away and thereafter his widow and sons have been substituted in his place by way of a substitution application.
3. The facts in brief are that the deceased applicant was initially appointed as a Postal Assistant in the Postal Department on 20.10.1980. He was placed under suspension on 30.11.1999, which continued until 22.08.2006. During this period, false charges were allegedly framed against him, leading to the issuance of a chargesheet. Deceased applicant submitted his written response to the chargesheet on 25.08.2000, wherein he denied all the allegations. Deceased applicant was in jail and after depositing bailed amount, he was released on bail. The Presenting Officer submitted a written brief on 05.12.2007, to which the applicant responded on 04.01.2008. The Inquiry Officer, in his report, concluded that Charges No. 1 and 2 were fully proved, whereas Charge No. 3 was not established. The deceased applicant filed his representation against the inquiry report on 02.07.2008. Based on the Inquiry Officer's findings, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 06.08.2008, removing the deceased applicant from service. The deceased applicant's appeal against the decision of Disciplinary Authority was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 17.04.2009. Further revision pension filed against the aforesaid orders was also rejected by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 23.05.2011. Aggrieved by the aforementioned orders, the deceased applicant has filed the present application.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, in their counter affidavit, submitted that the deceased applicant, while serving MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 3 as LC IX Postal Assistant at Allahabad Head Office during the period from 17.11.1998 to 12.08.1999, was found involved in serious financial misconduct. It was alleged that he had prepared four ledger cards reflecting fictitious deposit amounts in respect of two (2) Savings Bank (SB) accounts and five (5) Five-Year Time Deposit (TD) accounts. These accounts were shown as existing at Sarai Akil/Birauncha Branch Office (B.O.), but were either fake or had been previously operated in the name of other genuine depositors. Duplicate passbooks were allegedly fabricated without following the prescribed procedural norms and based on forged signatures of the Assistant Postmaster (SB III), Allahabad Head Office. These accounts were then locally transferred to Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth Sub Office using forged signatures of both the APM SB III and the Sub Postmaster, Sarai Akil SO. The deceased applicant was identified as a co-offender in this fraudulent act, which resulted in a financial loss of Rs.4,57,800.80 to the Department. Consequently, he was placed under suspension vide SSPO's Allahabad Memo No. B-1511/99-2000 dated 30.11.1999, which was subsequently revoked by Memo No. F-4/3/99-2000 dated 17.07.2006. The matter was also reported to the police and was registered as Case Crime No. 331/2000 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code at P.S. Civil Lines, Allahabad, on 21.09.2000. A police charge sheet (No. A-298 A) was filed on 26.02.2001 against the deceased applicant. Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, were initiated against him by SSPO's Allahabad Memo No. F-4/3/99-2000/Disc dated 03.08.2000. An Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed by memo dated 30.08.2000. Upon completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 03.04.2008. Based on this report, the applicant was awarded the penalty of "Removal from Service" vide SSPO's Allahabad Memo No. F-4/3/99-2000/Disc dated 06.08.2008, after being given full opportunity to defend himself. The appeal filed by the applicant against the said order was dismissed by the Director of Postal Services, Allahabad, vide Memo No. Vig/1-76/2008/1 dated 17.04.2009. A further revision MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 4 petition was also dismissed by the Chief Postmaster General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow, vide Memo No. Vig/P-95/2009/5 dated 23.05.2011.
4. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant in which the applicant has reiterated the facts as stated in the OA and denied the contents of the counter affidavit. Nothing new has been asserted in the rejoinder affidavit.
5 We have heard Shri M.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ram Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
6. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that allegations leveled against the original applicant are not proved. Finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer is contrary to the fact and the evidence collected during enquiry. It is further argued that documents demanded by the original applicant were also not supplied to him referring that those documents were not available with the Inquiry Officer. It is further argued that fair enquiry has not been conducted. Fair opportunity to defend the case to the original applicant has not been given. Principle of natural justice has been violated. Original applicant was in jail for many months. He was bailed out after depositing certain amounts conditionally. Other co-delinquents have also deposited the embezzled amount. No direct role is assigned in the allegation against the original applicant. It is further argued that original applicant has specifically pleaded that documents said to have been prepared on his behalf were not prepared by him, thus, requested for handwriting expert opinion which has not been done in this matter, thus, on this ground alone itself finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer becomes illegal. It is further argued that appellate authority as well as revisional authority both have also not considered the points raised by the original applicant. They passed illegal orders on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that mandatory provision provided under Rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 have also not been followed. Learned counsel for the applicants further referred to the MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 5 enquiry report and argued that last prosecution evidence was recorded on 26.07.2007 thereafter Inquiry Officer directed the applicant to submit written statement. Thus, applicant submitted his written statement on 25.09.2007. Thereafter both the parties were directed to submit their written brief. Learned counsel for the applicants referring to the enquiry report further argued that original applicant has not examined himself in this matter as witness. Written statement submitted on dated 25.09.2007 cannot be taken to be the statement of the original applicant recorded under Rule 14 (17) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He also referred to the provision of sub Rule 16 of the Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and argued that written statement submitted on 25.09.2007 has been submitted under this rule and it cannot be equated with the statement under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. Since original applicant has not examined himself as witness, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to interrogate the original applicant under Rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 placing all the material collected during investigation. Aforesaid provision has not been followed, which is mandatory, thus, the enquiry proceedings, orders passed by Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority are vitiated. Thus, argued that OA be allowed, impugned orders be set aside and respondents be directed to extend all the consequential benefits to the heirs of deceased employee. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following case laws:-
(i) Ministry of Finance and another Vs. S.B. Ramesh reported in 1998 AIR SC 853;
(ii) Union of India and another Vs. D.S. Manchanda reported in LAWS(DLH) 2011 3 587;
(iii) Union of India and others Vs. Surendra Kumar - Delhi High Court Writ (Civil) No. 11031 of 2022 decided on 2.6.2023.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that opportunity of hearing was given to the original applicant. He has submitted his written statement on dated 25.09.2007 and it can be taken as the statement of the delinquent employee made in his defence, thus, there was no need to interrogate the original applicant under Rule 14 MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 6 (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. Original applicant was in jail in a criminal case lodged against him in regard to the embezzlement. Co- delinquents have also deposited the embezzled amount. Prosecution was able to prove the allegation leveled against the original applicant. Finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer is based on the evidence collected during enquiry. It is a departmental enquiry, only principle of preponderance of probability has to be taken into consideration. Referring to the finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, it was further argued that there is sufficient evidence collected during enquiry, thus, opinion formed by the Inquiry Officer cannot be said to be illegal. There is no violation of principle of natural justice. Referring to the allegation leveled against the original applicant, it was further argued that punishment imposed upon the original applicant is commensurate with the gravity of allegation. There is no illegality, impropriety and perversity in the impugned orders, thus, OA lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the entire record including the record of enquiry proceeding.
9. Before analyzing the submission raised across the bar, it will be useful to quote the provision of Rule 14 (16), (17) and (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which are as follows:-
"(16) When the case for the disciplinary authority is closed, the Government servant shall be required to state his defence, orally or in writing, as he may prefer. If the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the Government servant shall be required to sign the record. In either case, a copy of the statement of defence shall be given to the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed.
(17) The evidence on behalf of the Government servant shall then be produced.
The Government servant may examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the Government servant shall then be examined and shall be liable to cross-examination, re-examination and examination by the inquiring authority according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for the disciplinary authority.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 7 (18) The inquiring authority may, after the Government servant closes his case, and shall, if the Government servant has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him".
10. In para 12 of the S.B. Ramesh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"12. It is necessary to set out the portions from the order of the Tribunal which gave the reasons to come to the conclusion that the order of the Disciplinary Authority was based on no evidence and the findings were perverse. The Tribunal, after extracting full the evidence of SW-1. the only witness examined on the side of the prosecution. and after extracting also the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer dated 18.6.91. observed as follows:-
"After these proceedings on 18.6.91 on the Enquiry Officer has only received the brief from the PO and then finalised the report. This shows that the Enquiry Officer has not attempted to question the applicant on the evidence appearing against him in the proceedings dated 18.6.91. Under Sub-Rule 18 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. It is incumbent on the Enquiry authority to question the officer facing the charge, broadly on the evidence appearing against him in a case where the officer does not offer himself for examination as witness. This mandatory provision of the CCS (CCA) Rules has been lost sight of by the Enquiry authority. The learned counsel for the respondents argued as the applicant did not appear in response to notice. It was not possible for the Enquiry authority to question the applicant. This argument has no force because. on 18.6.91 when the inquiry was held for recording the evidence in support of the charge, even if the Enquiry officer has set the applicant ex-parte and recorded the evidence, he should have adjourned the hearing to another date to enable the applicant to participate in the enquiry hereafter/or even if the inquiry authority did not choose to give the applicant an opportunity to cross-examine the witness examined in support of the charge, he should have given an opportunity to the applicant to appear and then proceeded to question him under sub-rule 18 of Rule 14 of CCs (CCA) Rules. The omission to do this is a serious error committed by the enquiry authority. Secondly, we notice that the enquiry authority has marked as many as 7 documents in support of the charge. while SW-1 has proved only one document: namely, the statement of Smt. K.R. Aruna alleged to have been recorded in his presence. How the other documents were received in evidence are not explained either in the report of the Enquiry authority or in the proceedings. Even if the documents which were produced along with the MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 8 charge sheet were all taken on record. unless and until the applicant had requested the Enquiry officer to mark certain documents in evidence on his side. the enquiry authority had no jurisdiction in marking all those documents which he had called for the purpose of defending himself on the side of the applicant while he has not requested for making of these documents on his side. It is seen that some of these documents which is marked on the side of the defence not at the instance of the applicant. has been made use of by the enquiry authority to reach a finding against the applicant. This has been accepted by the disciplinary authority also. We are of the considered view that this is absolutely irregular and has prejudiced the case of the applicant. These documents, which were not proved in accordance with law should nor have been received in evidence and that, any inference drawn from these documents is misplaced and opposed to law, we further find that the enquiry authority as well as, the disciplinary authority have freely made use of the statement alleged to have been made by the statement alleged to have been made by Smt Kr Aruna in the presence of SW1 and it was on that basis that they reached the conclusion the applicant was living with Smt. K.R. Aruna and that, he was the father of the two children on Smt. K.R. Aruna. The S.W.1 in his deposition which is extracted above, has not spoken to the details contained in the statement of Smt. K.R. Aruna which was marked as Ex.1. Further it is settled law that any statement recorded behind the back of a person can be made use of against him in a proceeding unless the person who is said to have made that statement is made available for cross-examination, to prove his or her veracity. The disciplinary authority has not even chosen to include Smt. K.R. Aruna in the list of witnesses for offering her for being cross-examined for testing the veracity of the documents exhibited at Ex.1 veracity of the documents exhibited at Ex.1 which is said to be her statement.
Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the enquiry authority as well as, the disciplinary authority have gone wrong in placing reliance on Ex.1 which is the alleged statement of Smt. K.R. Aruna without offering Smt. K.R. Aruna as a witness for cross- examination. The applicant's case is that the statement was recorded under coercion and duress and the finding based on this statement is absolutely unsustainable as the same is not based on legal evidence. The other documents relied on by the Enquiry authority, as well as by the disciplinary authority for reaching the conclusion that the applicant and Smt. K.R. Aruna were living together and that they have begotten two children have also been not proved in the manner in which they are required to be proved."
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 9 Then. again after extracting the relevant portions from the disciplinary authority's order, the Tribunal observed as follows:-
"We have extracted the fore-going portions from the order of the disciplinary authority for the purpose of demonstrating that the disciplinary authority has placed reliance on a statement of Smt. K.R. Aruna. without examining Smt. K.R. Aruna. without examining Smt. Aruna as a witness in the inquiry and also on serval documents collected from somewhere without establishing the authenticity thereof to come to a finding that the applicant has conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant. The nomination form alleged to have been filed by Sri Ramesh for the purpose of Central Government Employees' Insurance Scheme, was not a document which was attached to the memorandum of charges as one on which the Disciplinary Authority wanted to rely on for establishing the charge. This probably was one of the documents which the applicant called for, for the purpose of cross-examining the witness or for making proper defence. However, unless the Government servant wanted this document to be exhibited in evidence, it was not proper for the Enquiry Authority to exhibit it and to rely on it for reaching the conclusion against the applicant. Further, an inference is drawn that S.B.R.Babu mentioned in the school records (admission registers and Sh.Ramesh mentioned in the Municipal records was the applicant, on the basis of a comparison of the hand-writing or signature or telephone numbers are only guess work. which do not amount to proof even in a disciplinary proceedings. It is true that the degree of proof required in a departmental disciplinary proceedings, need not be of the same standard as the degree of proof required for establishing the guilt of an accused in a criminal case.
However, the law is settled now that suspicion, however strong, cannot be substituted for proof even in a departmental disciplinary proceeding. Viewed in this perspective we find there is a total dearth of evidence to bring home the charge that the applicant has been living in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant or that, he has exhibited adulterous conduct by living with Smt. K.R.Aruna and begetting children."
11. In the case of D.S. Manchanda (supra) in para 18 to 21, the Hon'ble Court has held as under:-
"18. The next contention on behalf of the petitioner is about the non- compliance of the Rule 14(18) of CCS(CCA) Rules. According to the petitioners, Rule 14(18) was substantially complied with. Perusal of the record, however, reveals that it is an admitted case that the respondent did not examine himself as a witness. Since the respondent had not examined himself as witness, it was incumbent upon the MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 10 enquiry officer to put evidence adduced against the respondent during the enquiry to him in compliance of Rule 14(18) of CCS(CCA) Rules. The said rule had been enacted with a view that whatever evidence comes in the enquiry, explanation may be sought to rebut the circumstances, which would be in consonance with the principle of reasonable opportunity and audi alterm partum as inbuilt in the principles of natural justice. On perusal of the record, the order dated 6th April 1998 is categorical in stating that the respondent had neither examined any defense witnesses nor had he offered himself as a witness. Thereafter the respondent was generally examined by the Inquiry Officer, however whether or not the circumstances that came in evidence against the respondent was put to him has not been shown. In similar matters involving the same purchases, the charged officers were only put the charges which were framed against the charged officer. In the circumstances, in absence of any thing it is to be inferred that the evidence which was recorded during the enquiry was not put to the respondent in compliance with rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
19. Perusal of Rule 14(18) clearly reveals that it is obligatory upon the enquiry authority to question the delinquent officer on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstance. As there is no reference to the evidence brought on record or circumstances appearing against the applicant, hence the general examination, a copy of which has also not been produced despite ample opportunity to the petitioner, it is apparent there was not a valid compliance of Rule 14(18) of the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965.
20. Provisions analogous to Rule 14(18) of CCS(CCA) Rule exist in Rule 19 (21) of Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1958. In the matter of Moni Shankar V. Union of India, 2008 (1) AJW 479, an enquiry proceeding was conducted in which the following questions were put to the Charged Officer:
"please state if you plead guilty?" ; "Do you wish to submit your oral or written arguments? ; "Are you satisfied with the enquiry proceeding" and "Can I conclude the enquiry?", were held to be not in compliance of Rule 9(21) of Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1958 as such type of questions did not reveal the evidence adduced in support of charges against the charged officer.
21. In Ministry of Finance v. S.B.Ramesh, (1998) 3 SCC 227 the Supreme Court had held the Rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1985 to be mandatory. The Apex Court had upheld the decision of the Tribunal holding that the order of the Disciplinary Authority was based on no evidence and that the findings were perverse, on the reasoning that even if the Enquiry Officer had set the applicant ex parte and recorded the evidence, he should have adjourned the hearing to another date to enable the applicant to participate in the enquiry thereafter. Or even if the Enquiry Authority did not choose to give the applicant an opportunity MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 11 to cross-examine the witness examined in support of the charge, he should have been given an opportunity to the applicant to appear and then proceeded to question him under Sub-rule (18) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The omission to do this was construed to be a serious error committed by the Enquiry Authority. This also cannot be disputed that if the charged officer has examined himself as a witness then it will not be obligatory to examine the charged officer under Rule 14(18) of CCS(CCA) Rules. However, in the absence of any defense statement by the charged official, it was mandatory on the part of the enquiry officer to examine him under Rule 14(18), and the non- compliance of which will vitiate the enquiry proceedings".
11. In the case of Surendra Kumar (supra) Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under:-
"22. It may further be noticed that in terms of Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, after the prosecution evidence is over, the charged officer is required to submit his statement of defence indicating his line of defence, if any. The evidence is to be led in the same manner giving an opportunity of cross- examination to the Presenting Officer. Thereafter, the Inquiring Authority shall enquire the charged officer if he wishes to appear as his own witness and in case the charged officer declines to do so, the Inquiring Authority is required to generally question him to explain any circumstances appearing against him.
The statement of the respondent, if any, recorded in defence has not been placed on record or discussed in the Inquiry Report. Neither, it has been reflected in case the questions were put up to the respondent in respect of the evidence appearing against him during the course of inquiry as contemplated under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules. The complete record of inquiry proceedings has not been placed on file. Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has been formulated for enabling the delinquent official to rebut and explain the circumstances appearing against him in evidence. The Inquiry Officer, as such, is obligated to put the incriminating evidence to the respondent in order to give him a proper opportunity of explaining the circumstances appearing against him unless he is examined in defence. Reliance may also be placed upon Ministry of Finance v. S.B. Ramesh, (1998) 3 SCC 227 wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held the Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to be mandatory.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the finding of the Tribunal to the extent of setting aside the inquiry proceedings along with the penalty order with liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law".
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 12
12. Issue of non-compliance of provision of Rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is legal issue and it can be raised at any time. Applicants will not be barred if this issue was not raised by the original applicant during course of enquiry or before OA and in appeal or revision.
13. We have also minutely analyzed the submissions raised across the bar with the facts and evidence of the present matter, certainly on completion of the prosecution evidence on dated 26.07.2007, inquiry officer directed the applicant to submit statement of defence. On submission of statement of defence by the applicant, Inquiry Officer directed both the parties (prosecution as well as defence) to submit their written brief. Perusal of the inquiry report also reveals that applicant has not examined himself as witness during the enquiry. Straightway Inquiry Officer has directed the parties to submit written brief and in compliance thereof both the parties have submitted their written brief. Statement of defence submitted as discussed herein above, certainly has been submitted taking recourse to the provision of Sub Rule 16 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 whereas if applicant would have examined himself as witness in his defence it would have examined under Sub Rule 17 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Reference may be taken by the language used in Sub Rule 16 and 17 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the same is quoted herein under:-
"(16) When the case for the disciplinary authority is closed, the Government servant shall be required to state his defence, orally or in writing, as he may prefer. If the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the Government servant shall be required to sign the record. In either case, a copy of the statement of defence shall be given to the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed.
(17) The evidence on behalf of the Government servant shall then be produced.
The Government servant may examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the Government servant shall then be examined and shall be liable to cross-examination, re-examination and examination by the inquiring authority according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for the disciplinary authority.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 13 Sub Rule 17 of the aforesaid Rule clearly provides that "the Government Servant may examine himself in his own behalf, if he so prefers". No other statement of the applicant has been brought on record by the respondents to support this fact that charged official has examined himself as witness in the enquiry proceeding. It may be mentioned here that there is vast difference between the provision provided under the Sub Rule 16 and 17 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the statement of defence recorded under the Sub Rule 16 of the Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 cannot be equated with the statement of the charged official examined under Sub Rule 17 of the Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Statement recorded under Rule 17 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is recorded in the form of examination in chief and cross examination.
14. In our considered opinion, applicant has not examined himself in this matter as witness. In that situation it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to interrogate the charged official under Sub Rule 18 of the Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which is a mandatory provision. Non-adherence of mandatory provision provided under Sub Rule 18 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vitiate the entire enquiry proceedings and also the order passed on that basis by the Disciplinary Authority, appellate authority as well as revisional authority as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court/Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the S.B. Ramesh (supra), Shri D.S. Manchanda (supra) and Surendra Kumar (supra).
15. It is a major penalty chargesheet. Since applicant has not examined himself as witness in defence, mandatory provision provided under Sub Rule 18 of the Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 have not been followed, statement of defence submitted under Sub Rule 16 of the Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules cannot be equated with the examination of the charged official under Sub Rule 17 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Thus, we are of the view that on the ground of non- adherence of provision of Sub Rule 18 of the Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 14 Rules, 1965, OA is liable to be allowed. Impugned orders passed by the authority concerned are liable to be set aside/quashed.
16. Accordingly, OA is allowed. Impugned orders dated 06.08.2008, 17.4.2009 and 23.05.2011 as well as enquiry report dated 31.03.2008 are hereby quashed. Since original applicant (the employee) has died and his legal heirs have been brought on record, thus, no liberty could be granted to the respondents to start fresh enquiry at the stage of Rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Consequential benefits be extended to the applicants, which was available to the original applicant. Aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.
(MOHAN PYARE) (JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Manish
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA