Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
P.K. Verma, Idse, Director (Plg), Chief ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Its ... on 18 September, 2007
ORDER Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
1. By this OA, applicant has challenged Memorandum dated 20th October, 2006 whereby he has been removed from service on the basis of conviction given by Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, Patiala vide its judgment dated 28.02.2006.
2. It is stated by the counsel for applicant that the above said order is bad in law because no reason whatsoever was given nor his representation has been considered, which shows non-application of mind. He was never convicted before nor any other punishment was given to him throughout his service and removing him from service, just two months before this retirement is very harsh. Moreover, the only allegation made against him was, that he had demanded a small amount of Rs. 5,000/-, which too is wrong and his appeal is already pending against the conviction in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The sentence has also been stayed. Therefore, there is no justification to remove him from service. His grievance is also that he has not been given any opportunity of being heard in person.
3. The O.A. is opposed by the respondents who have submitted that as per rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, disciplinary authority is empowered to take action against the Government servant on the ground of misconduct, which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Merely because the sentence has been suspended by the Appellate Court, the conviction does not get wiped out nor is it the ground to quash the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Counsel for respondents has also submitted that Court cannot substitute its own opinion as the scope of judicial review is limited to see whether proper procedure has been followed while passing the order and not examining the correctness of the order. He has thus prayed that the OA may be dismissed.
4. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings as well.
5. It is seen that the applicant had been tried for an offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that he was demanding an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as illegal gratification for effecting payment against two outstanding Bills for Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 85,000/- which had been submitted by the complainant Pramajit Singh and were pending since November 1999. After dealing with all the aspects, a detailed judgment was passed wherein the Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, Patiala, gave his finding that the prosecution has been fully successful in proving the charges against the accused and he is guilty of having committed the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act 1988 punishable Under Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988. He was accordingly sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and under Section 13 (1)(d) read with 13 (2) PC Act (Pages 55 57).
6. The respondents issued Memorandum dated 11.08.2006 (page 60) wherein it was clearly stated that on a careful consideration of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Special Judge, CBI, Patiala, the President has provisionally come to the conclusion that the said Shri P.K. Verma, SE, is guilty of grave misconduct and is not a fit person to be retained in service and accordingly propose to impose on him penalty of removal from service under Rule 19 (i) of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. Applicant was also given an opportunity by this Memorandum of making his representation on the penalty proposed. Pursuant to this Memorandum, applicant filed his representation dated 12.09.2006 stating therein that he has already filed an appeal and the matter is sub-judice. The conviction has not attained finality. Moreover, there is no other adverse remarks on the basis of which it can be concluded that his services are undesirable. He had also stated that only four months were left for his superannuation, therefore, the penalty proposed may be dropped. He has also invited our attention to para-6 of his representation wherein MOD(D-Vigilance) itself had noted that CWE has no role to play in clearance of final bills. He also submitted there was no motive established for accepting bribe from the complainant. However, all these aspects were duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority who passed the final order on 30.10.2006 (page 22) that applicant shall be removed from service with immediate effect.
7. From the above facts, it is clear that opportunity was indeed given to the applicant to make his representation on the proposed penalty because the Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that conduct of applicant, which led to his conviction was such, as to, render his further retention in public service undesirable. This is exactly the requirement as stipulated under rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. To be more precise, rule 19 is reproduced below for ready reference:
19. Special procedure in certain cases Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to Rule 18 - where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on criminal charge, or
(ii) xx xx xx xx
(iii) xx xx xx xx the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit:
[Provided that the Government servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under Clause (i):
Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule.] From the above, it is clear that the only requirement was to give him an opportunity of making representation on the proposed penalty, which was duly followed by the Respondents. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any procedural irregularity in passing the order.
8. As far as filing of the appeal is concerned, the law is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ramesh Kumar , wherein it was held that simply because the sentence is kept in abeyance and bail is granted to an accused, it does not obliterate the conviction and the conviction still continues, therefore, any action taken against a government servant on a misconduct, which led to his conviction, by the court of law, does not lose its efficacy. It was also explained that when the appellate court suspends the execution of sentence and grants bail to an accused, the effect of the order is that the sentence based on conviction for the time being is postponed, or kept in abeyance during the pendency of the appeal. However, the conviction continues. Therefore, the action taken against Applicant on the misconduct, which led to his conviction by a court of law does not lose its efficacy merely because the appellate court has suspended the execution of his sentence.
9. As far as the question of quantum of punishment is concerned, the law is again well settled that the court cannot sit in appeal over the decision or final orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as in judicial review, court can only review whether there is any irregularity in coming to the decision. The final decision taken by the authority cannot be interfered with. In taking this view we are supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar and also in the case of P.C. Kakkar v. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. , wherein it was clearly held that Courts should not interfere with the administrative decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. The Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision for that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision.
10. In the present case since the charges against the applicant proved in the criminal case are that he had demanded and accepted bribe, it goes without saying that it is a serious matter. We would, therefore, not like to interfere in the given circumstances. However, ultimately if the applicant's appeal is allowed or he is exonerated by the Hon'ble High Court, it would be open to him at that time to seek remedy by making representation to the authority concerned.
11. With the above observations, the OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.