Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr Surendra Singh vs Gnctd on 25 March, 2025
Item No. 32/C-2 1 OA No. 530/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 530/2022
Reserved on: 20.02.2025
Pronounced on: 25.03.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Dr. Surendra Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Bhukan Singh,
R/o 26, Pocket-1, E-2 Block,
Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi-110089
Aged about 63 years
(GROUP 'A')
Chief Medical Officer, NFSG ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. L. G.,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Raj Niwas, Delhi
2. Principal Secretary,
Department of Health and Family Welfare,
GNCT of Delhi
9th Level, A- Wing, IP Extension
Delhi Secretariat, Delhi-110002
3. Director General, Directorate of Health Services,
(GNCT of Delhi)
DGD Building, F-17 Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092
4. Union of India
Through its secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi ... Respondents
(By Advocate:Mr. Amit Yadav)
Item No. 32/C-2 2 OA No. 530/2022
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By way of the present OA filed u/s 19 of the AT Act, 1985, the applicant, in para 8 of the OA, has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"a) Quash and set aside the impugned charge memo dated 1.9.2021 (ANNEXURE-A-1) and the consequential departmental proceedings;
b) Order for consequential reliefs
c) Award costs
d) Pass such further orders/directions as this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in favour of the Applicant in the interest of justice."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant submits that in the month of August, 2006, dengue fever started spreading at alarming speed, some activists filed PIL in High Court of Delhi. High Court started monitoring the health service management in Delhi. Steps, like carrying of campaign to educate people which included printing of leaflets, distribution thereof through CDMOs and printing of cards to be used in schools whereby involving students and their parents in implementing check on breeding of dengue spreading mosquitoes, were decided to be taken. DHS assigned responsibilities to CMO (CT) and proceed with completion of printing and distribution of print materials. DHS constituted a Committee of two doctors and a Sr. AO to finalize assignment for printing job. Job was assigned to one Item No. 32/C-2 3 OA No. 530/2022 M/s Rajdhani Enterprises on 29.08.2006 for supply of 7.2 lakh leaflets and 11.70 lakh cards. In September, 2006, 80,000 printed leaflets were supplied to each of the 8 CDMOs and one Mobile Health Service Unit totalling to 7.2 lakh, and 97500 cards to each of the 12 zonal offices of education headed by Deputy Directors of Education, totalling to 11.7 lakhs.
3. It is also stated that in October, 2006, complaints received alleging irregularities in procedure of placing order of printing, maintenance of record of receipt and delivery of products. In November, 2006, the applicant and director, Health Services are transferred suddenly without following procedures of handing over and taking over the charge. In December, 2006, anaudit was conducted by a Special Audit Team and the same was concluded in March, 2007. One Dr. Dewan was appointed to conduct investigation and file the report.
4. Pursuant to above investigation report, the applicant was served with a Show Cause Notice, without annexing the materials in support of allegations of irregularities in 2010- 2011. The applicant states that he filed his reply in 2012.
5. The applicant submits that in September, 2018, his services were placed under suspension. In 2021, applicant's suspension was revoked and he was served with the charge memo on the issue of above alleged irregularities. Hence, the present O.A. Item No. 32/C-2 4 OA No. 530/2022
6. The applicant contends that in the OM dated 29.11.2012, it is clearly stated that it is mandatory to initiate departmental proceedings where warranted without undue delay as the departmental proceedings otherwise are held to be bad in law. SUBMISSION MADE BY RESPONDENTS
5. The respondents have filed their counter reply on 13.07.2022 wherein they have stated that the Department has procured printing 11.7 lacs Dengue Cardsand 7.2 lacs Dengue Reflects amounting to Rs. 19.98 lacs from M/s Rajdhani Enterprises. Scrutiny of the records, the following irregularities have been observed: -
(a) The Department has invited quotations for supply of printingDengue Cards and Dengue Leaf-lets from nine suppliers and notice board but web-based publicity has not been given for said limited tenders which is against the instruction of CVC vide circular dated 11.02.2004.
(b) The date, time and place of opening of the quotations/tenders have not been given in the notice.
Thus, the process is violation of Rule 160 of G.F.R, regarding transparency, competition and fairness.
6. The respondents further submit that no documents have been shown to audit which reveals that the quotations have been opened in the presence of bidders, whereas, the G.F.R Item No. 32/C-2 5 OA No. 530/2022 specifies vide sub-para VI of Rule 160 that opening of bids should be open and authorized representatives of the bidders should be permitted to attend the bid opening,which has not been complied with by Directorate of HealthServices, GNCTD.
7. The respondents state that the Directorate of Health Services had issued supply order dated 29.08.2006 to M/s Rajdhani Enterprises, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi for supply of 11.70 lacs dengue cards and 7.2 lacs Dengue leaf-lets amounting of Rs. 19.98 lacs. As per the records produced to audit, it has been observed that the entire quantity of dengue leaf-lets, 7.20 lacs, have been received by the 08Chief District Medical Officers and one Mobile Health Scheme and 9.75 lacs (out of 11.70 lacs) dengue cards have been received by the 10 Educational Zones/Districts w.e.f. 04.09.2006to 10.09.2006. The DHS could not produce the orders vide which the CDMO/M.H. Schemes and Education Department were authorized to receive the dengue leaf-lets and dengue cards and distribute them.
8. It is further stated that the records/information in respect of monitoring of the materialswhich were distributed to the CDMOs/MHS and Educational zones/Districts have not been shown to audit for scrutiny. Stock register maintained by the Department for printing materials is not an appropriate register and is not in a complete order. As per rule 187 of GFR, Item No. 32/C-2 6 OA No. 530/2022 material received from the private party should be recorded in the appropriate stock register after visual inspection regarding quality and quantity of the material and thereafter, material should be issued against the appropriateindent but it has been observed that entry of dengue cards and dengue leaf-lets has been made against the photocopy of invoice no. 38 dated 11.09.2006 pasted/entered at page no. 6 of the stock register but photocopy of receipts (dated 04.09.2006 to 11.09.2006) of Chief Distt. Medical Officer/Mobile Health Scheme and Educational zones/Districts of said materials have been pasted at the page 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the stock register i.e. before the materials received/taken in the stock were issued, which is improper and irregular. Entry of these items have not been made in the consumable Stock Register(Public Health Wing) maintained by the Department, which was shown to audit, in which entry of Dengue Cards procured/distributed during the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 was made.
9. The respondents submit that the stock register was maintained in a very casual manner and not maintained in prescribed register. The details as per the prescribed stock register i.e. date of issue, name of material, name of the unit/office to which issued, quantity issued and balance quantity in stock has not been recorded in the stock register. CVC vide OM dated 03.04.2007 while accepting the report of Item No. 32/C-2 7 OA No. 530/2022 Special Audit, advised to this Directorate to furnish ATR in the matter after ensuring compliance by H&FW Department with regard to remedial measures suggested by Special Audit, vide letter dated 23.04.2007 ofCMOI (HQ)/HOO, reply to the special audit was called for from In-charge, CT Branch i.e. from Dr. Surender Singh who furnished his explanation to the Directorate of Health Services vide his letter dated 18.09.2007. Further, clarification by Deputy Controller of Accounts (HQ), Directorate of Audit was sought from Director, DHS in r/o Special Audit namely:
1. It is alleged that there was fake billing of more than 200 hoardings;
2. Opted costly mode of publicity;
3. Absence of arrangements for dengue treatment at varioushospitals; and
4. Absence of quality check of hoardings.
10. DHS on the tentative findings of the audit team on the Special Audit of purchase/printing etc. in dengue control activities of the year 2006-07 was furnished to DCA audit of Directorate of Audit by CMO, HQ/HOO of DHS vide letter dated 26.09.2007. The status report on the special audit was also sent to Directorate of Audit and Directorate of Vigilance which was further forwarded to CVC by DOV. The CVC has Item No. 32/C-2 8 OA No. 530/2022 observed that the H&FW Deptt., GNCTD has notabided by the codal formalities with reference to propermaintenance of stock register, complying with the provision of GFR and also guidelines issued by the CVC w.r.t. web-based publicity. The CVC has advised strictly adhere to the extendguidelines. Therefore, H&FW Deptt., in compliance of the advise of CVC, appointed Dr. D.K. Dewan, State MCH Officer of Directorate of Health & Family Welfare to conduct an independent inquiry on audit para No. 10-A (iii) and 10-B (alleged irregularities in procurement of printed IEC material for dengue control in the year 2006-07) by examining the various available records and other witnesses as considered necessary and submit the inquiry report to the Principal Secretary, H&FW Deptt. Dr. D. K. Dewan, State MCH Officer, conducted the inquiry and submitted the inquiry report to the Principal Secretary, H&FW Department with the following observation: -
a. Response to the Bid Opening Committee members, where in out of 3 members, 2 members mention that it is difficult to either recall or remember whether Bidders were present at bid opening time or not, while one categorically states that "During the time of opening of tender none of the tenderers, participated, was present". There is nothing in writing on the file to Item No. 32/C-2 9 OA No. 530/2022 confirm that the then CMO (CT) had informed the bidders telephonically for the bid opening dated & time.
b. Two districts CDMO have also provided a copy of the authorization order supposed to have been issued by the then CMO (CT) to the supplier for getting the Dengue Leaf-lets receipted from the CDMOs. However, no such letters (office copy) are available in the records of CMO (CT) and DHS. None of the 6 DDE's who have responded so far, has provided any similar distribution/authorization letter for Dengue Cards, as has been provided by 2 of the 5 CDMOs who have responded.
c. On scrutiny of the records made available, there is a stock register belonging to the Care Taking Branch of the DHS which shows posted receipts, supposed to have been obtained from 12 District Directors of Education Department, each having been delivered 97,500 Dengue Cards, totalling to 11.70 lacs such cards. However, on seeking confirmation from the 12 DDEs about these documented receipts in stock register, this enquiry officer has received one DDE's denial of any such cards ever supplied to her office. Replies only from 6 DDEs havebeen received till date. The challan copy Item No. 32/C-2 10 OA No. 530/2022 (photocopy) also placed in file confirms receipt of only 9.75 lacs cards instead of claimed 11.70 lacs.
11. The respondents submit that the following observations were made: -
(i) As per Rule 160 of GFR, 2005 opening of bids forpurchase/printing of material for dengue control activities in the year 2006-07 was to be carried out in the presence of the bidders but there is nothing on the record to confirm that the then CMO (CT) has informed the bidders for the bid opening date & time.
(ii) Records relating to proper receipt and utilization used for distribution were not maintained.
(iii) Bid Documents/Notice inviting tenders (NITs) were issued and dispatched by the then CMO (CT) through CT Branch Diary No.1501-1510 and shown delivered "In hand" thereby contravening the rule No. 151 of GFR, 2005 in this regard.
(iv) CMO (CT) had not sought approval of specific list of agencies for procurements/supply of Dengue cards & Dengue leaflets before floating the tender.
(v) CMO (CT) failed to provide original challan and also the original copy of the work order during preliminary enquiry as same were not found in record.
Item No. 32/C-2 11 OA No. 530/2022
(vi) CMO (CT) failed to take the approval of the then
DHS before dispatching the work order.
(vii) CMO (CT) without maintain record of receipt of Dengue Card and Dengue leaflets confirmed on the body of the bill dated 11.09.2006 of M/s Rajdhani Enterprises about receipt of 11.70 Lakhs Dengue Card and 7.20 Lakhs Dengue leaflets resulting into expenditure sanction by the then SMO (SHIB) amounting Rs.19.98 Lakhs.
12. After considering the above observations as well as reply submitted by Dr. Surender Singh, CMO being the In-charge CT Branch of DHS, it was observed that he should have followed the adequate procedure not only in distribution of leaflets but also keeping adequate checks on account and balances in such dengue cards and leaflets and in the tender irregularities. Para 10 (A) (iii) and Para 10 B of the Special audit report and also gross lapses and irregularities were also brought out in Dr. D. K. Dewan's report. Therefore, in lieu of the special audit report and the lapses and irregularities noticed by Dr. D. K. Dewan's report, the matter was referred to CVC which recommended initiating action against Dr. Surender Singh.
Item No. 32/C-2 12 OA No. 530/2022 SUBMISSION MADE BY APPLICANT IN REJOINDER
13. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondents, the applicant has also filed rejoinder on 14.07.2023 wherein it is stated that the respondents have sought only to prejudice the mind of the Tribunal by saying and that too falsely that there have been series of cases against the applicant, 4 FIRs, No. 5/2017, 7/2017, 8/2017 and 9/2017, PS ACB, New Delhi, had been registered against some officers including the applicant, all of these FIRs stand closed on acceptance of the closure report filed by police as there was no material nor any evidence to proceed further in the matter. The applicant contends that the respondents tried to conceal the information about closure of the cases for obvious reasons that they are not conducting enquiry in an impartial manner. Further, the respondents have submitted that departmental proceedings under Rule 16 is also pending, in that the applicant has been exonerated has not been mentioned. The respondents have also sought to draw attention of the Tribunal to an FIR 287/2015, PS Civil Lines, Delhi, caused while the applicant was posted in Aruna Asif Ali Hospital. In the matter of proceedings under Rule 16, the order of Hon'ble LG, the Disciplinary authority, showing that he has been pleased to order to exonerate the applicant on merits and as regards, the FIR No. 278/2015, showing that the charge- sheet has been filed by police only against one Sh. Pawan Item No. 32/C-2 13 OA No. 530/2022 Kumar and not against the applicant, copy of status report submitted by concerned police station to the respondents in December, 2021. All these are being sought to be placed despite the same having been closed/ dropped as against the applicant only to prejudice this Tribunal against the applicant.
14. The applicant further submits that the charge-sheet has been issued not only after 15 years of the alleged happenings, also it has been issued after the alleged reports of audit or investigation 2007 and 2008, and there has not been any addition to the materials after those reports to base the charge- sheet on, that is there has not been any fresh material discovered thereafter.
15. Also, the Applicant was placed under suspension in September, 2018. The suspension note, put upto the Honourable LG, the Disciplinary authority, stated to have included the draft charge-sheet and yet the charge-sheet is dated 01.09.2021 and served vide forwarding memo of October 13, 2021 only. This is based on some of the fabricated materials, and some materials as many as 19 documents, mentioned at serial numbers 6 to 24 of the list of documents, (total number of documents in the list is only 28, list annexed on which basis the charges have been leveled) being relied upon to sustain the charges, showing the documents not supplied or the respective Item No. 32/C-2 14 OA No. 530/2022 originals not made available for comparison even after a lapse of more than a year from the date of charge-sheet.
16. Apart from the above, the DGHS, Dr. Kirti Bhushan, had given his remarks and findings in sufficient detail and mentioned no action was called for in his vigilance report and Dr. N. R. Agarwal, CMO, Vigilance on the subject of alleged misuse of public funds in the name of Dengue Control Activities, forming the substantial/main part of the allegation against the applicant, in the impugned charge-sheet, mentions in his reply dated 29.08.2008, copy annexed as Annexure RJ/07, that:-
"From the details of distribution as mentioned above, it can be seen that there has been distribution of 7.2 lakh dengue leaflets and 11.07 lakh of dengue cards, (typing error, it ought to have been 11. 70, the figures mentioned of cards distributed totals to 11.70).It is for your information and necessary action."
17. It is stated that from these two documents and from the attendance sheet of the bidders supplied as one of the 28 documents listed to sustain the alleged charges, (Annexure RJ/08) it can be seen that there has been no financial misfeasance as alleged or atall. The applicant further states that, apart from the above, after so many years that he may not be able to find his witnesses or their memory may have been affected. This may cause serious prejudice to him.
18. On the basis of above reading and with the submissions in the OA, it is submitted that the respondents have not been able Item No. 32/C-2 15 OA No. 530/2022 to show anything to sustain to proceed with the departmental proceedings.
CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES
19. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgments namely; (i) in OA No. 4222/2014 decided by the Tribunal on 14.02.2017 titled Ms. Meenu S. Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr., which was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court by way of W.P. (C) 8540/2017 decided on 10.12.2019 titled Union of India & Anr. Vs. Meenu S. Kumar, which was further challenged before Hon'ble Apex Court by way of SLP No. 26481/2020 decided on 01.07.2021 titled Union of India & Anr. Vs. Meenu S. Kumar; (ii) in W.P. (C) 5083/2018 decided by the Hon'ble High Court on 13.02.2024 titled Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Saini; (iii) in W.P. (C) 22987/2022 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 21.03.2024 titled Rajendra Kumar Namdeo Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors; (iv) in OA No. 1447/2018 decided by the Tribunal on 20.03.2023 titled Subhas Chandra Pandey Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors; and (v) in OA No. 3551/2017 decided by the Tribunal on 17.07.2023 titled Ashok Kumar Verma Vs. Delhi Development Authority.
Item No. 32/C-2 16 OA No. 530/2022
20. Learned counsel for the respondents' places reliance on the judgments namely; (i) in Civil Appeal No. 2333/2007 decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 29.05.2012 titled Secretary, Ministry of Defence Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha;
(ii) in Civil Appeal No. 393/2007 decided by the Hon'ble Apex Courton 25.01.2007 titled Government of A. P. & Ors. Vs. V. Appala Swamy, (2007) 14 SCC 46; (iii) in OA No. 4055/2016 decided by the Tribunal on 01.03.2021 titled Pradeep Kumar Vs GNCTD & Ors; and (iv) in OA No. 433/2018 decided by the Tribunal on 07.01.2019 titled Anil Kumar Makkar Vs. Union of India
21. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the submissions made by them. We have also examined the briefs submitted by them and pleadings in this matter.
ANALYSIS
22. Admittedly, the applicant is working in the respondents' organisation. A printing job was assigned to one M/s Rajdhani Enterprises on 29.08.2006 for printing and supply of 7.2 lakh leaflets and 11.70 lakh cards. In October, 2006, complaints alleging irregularities in procedure of placing order of printing, maintenance of record of receipt and delivery of products was received. In November, 2006, the applicant was transferred. In Item No. 32/C-2 17 OA No. 530/2022 December, 2006, an audit was conducted by a Special Audit Team and the same was concluded in March, 2007. Pursuant to it, the applicant was served with a Show Cause Notice on the alleged irregularities in the year 2010-2011 which was replied by the applicant in 2012. In September, 2018, the applicant was placed under suspension and the suspension of applicant was revoked in the year 2021. A Charge memo was served to the applicant on 01.9.2021 for the misconduct allegedly conducted by him in the year 2006.
23. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 01.09.2021 (Annexure-A/1) reads as under: -
"2. Dr. Surender Singh is directed to submit within 15 days of the receipt of this memorandum a written statement of his defense and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person.
3. He is informed that the inquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charges as are not admitted. He should, therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charge.
4. Dr. Surender Singh is further informed that if he does not submit his written statement of defense on or before the date specified in para 2 above, or does not appear in person before the inquiring authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, or the orders/ directions issued in pursuance of the said rule, the inquiring authority may hold the inquiry against him, ex- parte.
5. Attention of Dr. Surender Singh is invited to Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, under which no Government servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Government. If any representation is received on his behalf from another person in respect of any matter dealt with in these proceedings, it will be Item No. 32/C-2 18 OA No. 530/2022 presumed that Dr. Surender Singh is aware of such a representation and that has been made at his instance and action will be taken against him for violation of Rule 20 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
6. A copy of CVC's advice vide O.M. No. 006/DLH/077-487549 dated 28.07.2021 is also enclosed.
7. The receipt of the Memorandum may be acknowledged."
24. A total of 08 Articles of Charge have been framed against the applicant in Annexure-I, a statement of imputation of misconduct is given in Annexure-II, list of documents (Annexure-III) by which and list of witness (Annexure-IV) by whom the proposed articles of Charge are proposed to be sustained.
25. While arguing the matter orally, the learned Counsel for the applicant has advanced two-pronged argument. The first limb of his argument is that the OM dated 29.11.2012 of the respondents' states that it is mandatory to initiate departmental proceedings, where, warranted without undue delay as the departmental proceedings otherwise are held to be bad in law. It is seen that the applicant, in response to the memorandum F. 14/19/07/H&FW/319 dated 03.06.2010 of the respondents, sought copies of relevant documents for submission of reply on 14.06.2010, 29.03.2011, 01.06.2011, 14.09.2011 and 05.12.2011, however, no documents were provided by the respondents and at last the applicant submitted his reply on the various points to the Special Item No. 32/C-2 19 OA No. 530/2022 Secretary (H&FW), Government of NCT of Delhi through proper channel on 09.04.2012 (Annexure A-9). In this case, the disciplinary action against the applicant has been initiated after a prolonged delay of almost 15 years from the date of alleged misconduct and almost after 11 years from the Show Cause Notice (dated 03.6.2010) vide which reply on the points of controversy was sought from the applicant. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the memorandum of charge has been issued by the respondents after almost after 15 years of the alleged misconduct, therefore, there is unexplained delay of 15 years in this case. We do not agree with the stand of the respondents taken in their reply dated 13.7.2022 wherein it has been stated that delay in issuance of charge sheet has no merit to withhold the departmental proceedings.
26. The second limb of argument is that the respondents intend to sustain the charge by producing unauthenticated copies of the listed documents as they did not provide the original documents. A copy of list of such unauthenticated documents is given at Annexure RJ-5 (page 86).The applicant through relief sought has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned Charge Memo dated 01.9.2021.
27. On the issue of use of unauthenticated (Xerox copies) documents as reliable documents in the disciplinary Item No. 32/C-2 20 OA No. 530/2022 proceedings, this Tribunal in OA No. 4222/2014 decided on 14.02.2017, titled as Ms. Meenu S Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr. The Tribunal has held as under: -
"12. The Government of India with regard to Xerox copies in departmental inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, issued vide F.No.C-14010/3/2011-Ad.V, dated 23.02.2011, and the same read as under:
"However, in a number of instances, it has been noticed in the Board that the proceedings in the field formations are being routinely conducted on the basis of the unauthenticated Xerox copies only, either because the original documents are not available or are tied up in a court of law. It is clarified that such a course of action is not permissible. If the original documents are tied up in a court of law, the CBI/investigating agency which had taken possession of the original documents should be asked to authenticate the documents. Its assistance may also be taken for getting the original documents in custody of the court inspected by the charged officer by making an appropriate application for inspection in the court, if the charged officer so insists. If the original documents are otherwise not in custody of Court/CBI/investigating agency but can still not be located, then the disciplinary authority should not proceed to conduct the inquiry till all out efforts are made to locate the original documents. It is also mentioned that the UPSC, while considering a case referred to it for advice, invariably insists on the original/authenticated copies of the documents and does not entertain a proposal till all the case records/documents are either in original or duly authenticated copies thereof. In a number of cases, the proposals have not been finalized so far as the UPSC has returned the proposals on the above considerations and in the absence of the original documents, copies thereof taken on record in the inquiry can not be authenticated. These cases include cases of retired Group B, C and D employees under Rule9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as also cases of Appeal/revision of such category of employees. It is therefore urged that disciplinary authorities may ensure that departmental proceedings are based only on original/authenticated copies of the relied upon documents. It may also be ensured that while making a reference to the DGoV /Board bringing out alleged irregularities in a case involving a Gr. A officer or seeking first stage advice in respect of a Gr. B officer or seeking Item No. 32/C-2 21 OA No. 530/2022 sanction of the President under Rule 9 for initiating action against a retired employee, it must be ensured that only authenticated copies of the documents sought to be relied upon are sent for consideration. Any proposal accompanied by only Xerox copies will not be considered and will be returned without any examination."
13. In Bheri Nageswara Rao (supra), it was held that a proper opinion can be given by the expert only if he examines the original signature only, and that a xerox copy of a document can never constitutes the basis. The relevant paragraphs read as under:
"4. Section 45 of the Act enables the Court to obtain the opinion of an expert on various aspects, including the one relating to the comparison of disputed signatures. An expert would be in a position to render his opinion, only when the original of the document containing the disputed signature is forwarded to him. Further, there can be effective comparison and verification of the signatures, if only another document containing the undisputed signatures of the contemporary period are made available to the expert. In the instant case, respondents 1 to 3 filed Exs.B.13 and B.15, which are, admittedly, the Xerox copies of general power of attorney, dated 21-12.1988 and khararnama, dated 21-12-1988. It is rather incomprehensible that an expert would be able to undertake analysis of the imprint of a signature, on a Xerox copy.
5. The opinion of hand writing expert involves the analysis of the slant, which a person uses in the matter of putting his signature, and in some cases, the point of time, at which it may have been subscribed. These analysis would become possible only vis-à-vis an original signature; and the signature mark: on a Xerox copy of a document can never constitute the basis."
14. In Anil Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, held that opinion given by an expert comparing photocopies of documents would not be of any evidential value.
15. In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Others, (2009) 2SCC 570, the Hon'ble Apex Court while observing that "the provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceedings but the principles of natural justice are", held, mere production of documents is not enough and that the contents of documentary evidence has to be proved by examining Item No. 32/C-2 22 OA No. 530/2022 witnesses, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under:
"14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.
15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the Enquiry Officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. Appellant being an employee of the bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the Enquiry Officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left."
16. In the present case, the only document on which the entire charge is dependent, is the Identity Card, but even without producing the original of the said Identity Card in the inquiry, the charge against the applicant was held proved both by the inquiry and disciplinary authorities, which amounts to no evidence and is a clear perversity and violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, and accordingly, the Inquiry Report and the disciplinary order are liable to be quashed and set aside.
17. In normal circumstances, whenever it is found that the inquiry is deficient either procedurally or otherwise, the course being adopted is to remand the matter back to the concerned authority to redo the same afresh. However, in the present case, there is no allegation or proof that the alleged Identity Card was used or misused by any person.
Item No. 32/C-2 23 OA No. 530/2022 Further, there is no allegation of any financial loss or damage to the Government or to any other person. In these peculiar circumstances, we do not propose to remand the matter for fresh inquiry.
18. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Allahabad Bank & Others v. Krishna Narayan Tewari, decided on 02.01.2017,(2017) SCC online SC 2, it was held, as under:
"8. ............. ...... ....... ..... Any remand either to the Enquiry Officer for a fresh enquiry or to the Disciplinary Authority for afresh order or even to the Appellate Authority would thus be very harsh and would practically deny to the respondent any relief whatsoever. Superadded to all this is the fact that the High Court has found, that there was no allegation nor any evidence to show the extent of loss, if any, suffered by the bank on account of the alleged misconduct of the respondent. The discretion vested in the High Court in not remanding the matter back was, therefore, properly exercised."
19. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are quashed with all consequential benefits, and the OA is allowed as prayed for. No costs."
28. The order/judgment of this Tribunal in Ms. Meenu S Kumar (supra) was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of W.P. (C) 8540/2017 decided on 10.12.2019 titled Union of India & Anr. Vs. Meenu S. Kumar. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under: -
"4. In the impugned order the CAT came to the following conclusions:
(i) Neither the IO nor the DA had even seen the original identity card before holding the charge against the Respondent as being proved.This was despite repeated requests of the Respondent.
(ii) The request of the Respondent to proceed with the inquiry on the basis of authenticated documents did not absolve the prosecutionfrom marking the original identity card, which was the only document on which Item No. 32/C-2 24 OA No. 530/2022 the entire charge was dependent. It was not the case of the Petitioners herein that they could not produce the original identity card due to any valid reason.
(iii) Even though the handwriting expert was examined in the inquiry to prove the signature of the Respondent on the disputed identity card, the original identity card was not even shown to the handwriting expert.
In other words, it was not shown that he had examined the original card to render his opinion. Therefore, his opinion had no value.
(iv) (iv) The circular dated 23 February, 2011 issued by the Government of India as regards use of Xerox copies in departmental inquiries clearly stated that if the original documents were not in the custody of a Court/CBI/Investigating Agency, and could still not be located, theDA "should not proceed to conduct the enquiry till all out efforts have made to locate the original documents."
(v) Referring to the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh inBheri Nageswara Rao v. Mavuri Veerabhadra Rao AIR 2006 AP 314, the decision dated 8" December, 2015 of this Court in FAO(OS)660/2015 (Anil Gupta v. Kewal Sehgal), and the decision of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab Bank and Ors. (2009)2 SCC 570, the CAT held that the findings of the I0 and DA were based on no evidence, a clear perversity, and in violation of principlesof natural justice.
5. The CAT also held that in the Respondent's case, since there was neither any allegation nor proof that the alleged identity card had been used or misused in any manner by any person, nor that any financial loss or damage to the Government had been caused, no case was made out for the remand of the matter for a fresh inquiry. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bankv. Krishna Narayan Tewari (2017) SCC OnLine SC 2 in this regard.
6. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Rohan Jaitley,learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.
7. The fact of the matter is that the only charge against the Respondent was that she had issued a false identity card under her signature and official stamp. However, the original identity card was never produced in the inquiry. No attempt was made by the Petitioners to explain in the Item No. 32/C-2 25 OA No. 530/2022 inquiry proceedings why they could not produce the original identity card.
8. Now in the present petition, it is sought to be suggested that departmental inquiries may be proceeded with in the absence of original documents on the grounds that "sometimes, the original documents could be deposited in the trial court which may also be released only after the conclusion of the trial proceedings." It is stated that in the present case the CBI had obtained specimen signatures of the Respondent in the presence of independent witnesses, and her admitted handwritings were obtained from her office, which along with the original identity card were sent to the CFSL. However, no attempt has been made to explain why the said original identity card could not be produced in the inquiry proceedings. What is instead stated is that "if the original documents are tied up in a court of law, the CBI, Investigating Agency which had taken possession of the original documents should be asked to authenticate the documents." In the present case, it is stated that the CBI had furnished true copies of the documents including the identity card."
29. The said W.P. (C) 8540/2017 was further challenged before Hon'ble Apex Court by way of SLP No. 26481/2020 titled Union of India & Anr. Vs. Meenu S Kumar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 01.07.2021 has dismissed the said SLP and the judgment of Hon'ble Court of Delhi attained finality.
30. In W.P. (C) 5083/2018 decided by the Hon'ble High Court on 13.02.2024 titled Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Saini. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under: -
"8. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it clearly emerges that the learned Tribunal was conscious of the fact that the Charge Memorandum should generally not be interfered with.
Item No. 32/C-2 26 OA No. 530/2022 However, after perusal of the record including the CBI's letter dated 02.07.2007 addressed to the petitioner, the learned Tribunal found that the petitioner was provided with all necessary documents in the year 2007 itself but chose not to issue any Charge Memorandum for another seven years, for which there was no satisfactory explanation. In these circumstances, it was found that though the incident pertained to year 1999, a charge memo was sought to be issued almost 15 years thereafter and therefore, the learned Tribunal was of the considered view that it was a fit case where the Charge Memorandum issued against the respondent was liable to be quashed."
30. In W.P. (C) 22987/2022 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh titled Rajendra Kumar Namdeo Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide its judgment dated 21.03.2024 has held asunder: -
"2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned charge-sheet mainly on two counts, firstly that the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay as the incident, which has been narrated, occurred in the year 2010-2011 whereas the charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner on 27.09.2021 i.e. almost after 10 years and there is no explanation given neither in the charge-sheet nor in the reply submitted by the respondents about the causes of the delay in initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner and secondly, that the charge-sheet has been issued in the name of Under- Secretary whereas it should have been issued in the name of Governor for the reason that the petitioner's disciplinary authority is the State Government and as such the charge sheet has been issued by an incompetent authority. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered in cases of Jaipur Development Authority and Others Vs. Vijay Kumar Data and another reported in (2011) 12 SCC 94, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and another reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 738 and in case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. Md. T.N. Housing Board reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636.
*** *** *** Item No. 32/C-2 27 OA No. 530/2022
In the case at hand, as alleged, the petitioner committed irregularity in the year 2011, but no cognizance of the said irregularity was taken upto 2018. It is also to be taken note of that the enquiry in the matter was conducted in the year 2018, but the report thereof came in the year 2019 whereas the authority should have acted immediately in the matter, but even though they took more than two years to issue charge sheet to the petitioner. In a Government Department, it is beyond imagination and something surprising that for seven years the authority did not find any irregularity by its own and kept mum, but it was only when a complaint was made by some outsider about such irregularities then only the authorities woke up and conducted preliminary enquiry in the year 2018. As such, in my opinion, the respondents have completely failed to justify such a long delay in issuing charge sheet and taking action against the petitioner, which cannot be ignored simpliciter and in absence of any reasonable explanation for the same, the charge sheet can be quashed on the ground of delay as action taken by the authority after an inordinate delay without there being any sufficient explanation. Accordingly, the charge sheet issued to the petitioner is found to be illegal."
28. In OA No. 1447/2018 decided by the Tribunal on 20.03.2023 titled Subhas Chandra Pandey Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. The Tribunal recorded the following order: -
"2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Grade IV DASS/LDC in Delhi Administration/GNCT of Delhi in the year 1989. He was subsequently promoted as Grade-III DASS (UDC) on 19.06.2002 and as Grade II DASS on 30.03.2015.During his service he remained posted at variousdepartments of Delhi Government, including RegistrarCooperative Societies (RCS) from 23.01.1989 to10.05.2000. The respondents issued Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 11.05.2009 to the applicant, proposing departmental action against him, alleging that while hewas posted in RCS office in May, 2004 Shri Satpal Groverand Shri Amarjeet Chhabra utilized his expert services forpreparing documents for submission to RCS Office and in lieu thereof a cheque of Rs. 25,000/- was issued by Serve Sanjhi CGHS in favour of his wife under their signature. Applicant submitted his reply on Item No. 32/C-2 28 OA No. 530/2022 03.07.2009, inter alia, submitting that he was not posted in RCS office during the year 2003-2004. After around six years, respondents issued another SCN dated 23.04.2015, repeating the same contents with a further averment that as per their record they have not received his reply to the SCN dated 11.05.2009. He responded to the said SCN vide his letter dated 19.05.2015, acknowledged by the respondents on 20.05.2015, whereby he has annexed the copy of his earlier reply and expressed his reasonable belief that the matter was laid at rest upon receipt of his reply in 2009. However, vide Memorandum dated 01.01.2016, a Departmental Enquiry (DE) has been initiated against the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The following article of charge has been levelled against him:
"That Sh. Subhash Chand Pandey, then LDC, now Gr. II/HC in RCS has misplaced the separate folder pertaining to membership of Sh. Sunil Kohli in Jagriti Nagar Co- operative House Building Society Ltd. Which was sent to L&J Deptt., GNCT of Delhi and received back in RCS office during 23/11/89 to May 2000.
Thus, the said Subhas Chand Pandey, the then LDC, now Gr. II/HC by the above mentioned acts of Omission and Commission exhibited lack of devotion to duty an acted in a manner unbecoming of Govt. servant, and violating the provisions of Rule 3 CCS Conduct Rules, 1964."
With "ARTICLES-I That Sh. Subhash Chand Pandey, the then LDC, now Gr. II/HC in RCS office accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/- from Sh. Satpal Grover & Sh. Amarjeet Chhabra of Serve Sanjhi Society CGHS by cheque favouring his wife Smt. Shasikala in lieu of preparing documents for the society for the purpose of obtaining clearance of RCS for draw of lots. Thus by the above mentioned act of Omission and Commission, the said Sh. Subhash Chand Pandey, Gr. II/HC, misused his official position thereby committed gross misconduct and acted in a manner unbecoming of Govt. servant and violating the provisions of Rule 3 CCS Conduct Rules, 1964."
2.1 It is submitted that a perusal of the above article of charge would show that the allegation pertains to acceptance of illegal gratification in May, 2004 while he was posted in RCS office, whereas the applicant was not posted in the said office since, 2000. He had already joined his new place of posting 04 years back and was not posted in the office of RCS in 2004. The applicant Item No. 32/C-2 29 OA No. 530/2022 submitted his reply to the impugned memorandum on 08.02.2016, thereby denying the allegation leveled against him. However, vide order dated 09.09.2017 Enquiry Officer (EO) and Presenting Officer (PO) were appointed for conducting Departmental Enquiry (DE). 2.2 It is submitted that vide order dated 27.09.2017 the Disciplinary Authority (DA), Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC) recalled its earlier orders dated 09.09.2017 on the premise that the DA has changed as the applicant hasalready been transferred and relieved to join General Administration Department.
2.3 It is further submitted that the allegation against the applicant relates to the year 2004. The SCN was issued in 2009, which was promptly replied by the applicant. After six years thereof, the SCN was again issued in 2015 and the enquiry has been initiated after 12 years of the alleged misconduct. It is submitted that loss of memory is a natural phenomenon, which is sufficient to cause prejudice in the matter of defense to the delinquent Government servant, as with the passage of time the delinquent will not able to recollect the dates and events which took place way back. The charge is vague and highly belated and hit by delay and latches. It is trite law that enquiry proceedings cannot be initiated after a long and undue delay and that too in absence of any explanation for such inordinate delay.
2.4 Furthermore, the respondents have failed to apply their mind, as the applicant was not even posted in the RCS office in 2004, still he is being charged for accepting illegal gratification in 2004 while posted in RCS office. 2.5 It is further submitted that the applicant is due for his next promotion to Grade I (DASS)/Superintendent in the year 2019 and also his 3 rd financial upgradation is due in January, 2019. Due to the impugned charge-sheet, he shall be denied his promotion as also MACP benefits. He has not been given his 2nd financial upgradation under MACP.
2.6 It is also submitted that in respect of revival of membership of Sh. Sunil Kohli in the Jagriti Nagar Cooperative Housing Ltd. Itself, Shri D. M. Haneta the then Deputy Registrar was issued charge-sheet in the year 2010, which has been quashed by the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.90/AN/2010 vide order dated 18.02.2011.
2.7 Aggrieved, the applicant has filed the instants OAs, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following main relief:
Item No. 32/C-2 30 OA No. 530/2022 "i) Quash and set aside the impugned chargesheet vide memorandum dated 01/01/2016 (Annexure A/1) with all consequential benefits;"
3. In support of the claim of the applicant, Shri Ajesh Luthra, the learned counsel has pressed the following grounds:
3.1 The charge-sheet is vague and unspecific inasmuch as loss of separate folder is attributed after a longduration, i.e., from November 1989 to May, 2000, i.e., after a lapse of 11 years and no particulars of date regarding sending the said separate folder to Law/Justice Department (GNCT Delhi) or receipt thereof in the RCS office has been determined prior to issuance of the charge-
sheet as a result of which the charge-sheet is vague and unspecific.
3.2 There is no specific allegation of any corrupt or ulterior motive attributed to the applicant in the misplacement of said separate folder. No loss is caused to the Government for misplacement of the same. In this regard it is submitted that mere negligence or carelessness in performance of duty is not misconduct as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex-Constable, AIR 1992 SC 2188.
3.3 The span of applicant's posting at the RCS office was from 23.11.1989 to May, 2000 and even if the time gap in issuing the charge-sheet from May 2000 is considered, without any explanation for the delay, yet the impugned charge-sheet is delayed by 16 years. The inordinate and unexplained delay, he has been greatly prejudiced, as he is not in a position to recollect the things that occurred way back in 2000.
3.4 Prior to issuance of the impugned charge-sheet to the applicant for alleged misplacement of separate folder regarding revival of membership of Shri Sunil Kohli in Jagriti Nagar Cooperative Building Society Ltd., respondents issued charge-sheet under Rule 14 alleging wrongful revival of the said membership to Shri D.M. Khaneta, the then Deputy Registrar, RCS. The said charge-sheet stood quashed by the Circuit Bench of Calcutta at AN Islands vide order dated 18.02.2011 in OA No.90/AN/2010 on the ground of delay in initiation. It is submitted that once the charge-sheet issued to the officer who had revived the membership of said Shri Sunil Kohli in the said society has been quashed by the Tribunal way back in 2010 on the ground of delay in initiation of charge-sheet, it is unjust and unfair on the part of the respondents to issue a charge-sheet to the applicant at this belated stage.
Item No. 32/C-2 31 OA No. 530/2022 3.5 There is no application of mind in issuing the charge- sheet. It is further submitted that applicant at the relevant point of time was working on the post of LDC and he was never been an expert of any field, as such there is no question of giving any expert advice to any one by him. The charge in this regard is without any basis. 3.6 To buttress his arguments, Shri Luthra, relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Than Singh v. UOI & Ors., CWP No.3448/1998 (decided on 19.09.2002) [MANU/DE/1660/2002 (para 12)] the Hon'ble High Court held that correctness or otherwise of the charge-sheet can be questioned if there is no application of mind in issuing the charge-sheet. The relevant part of the judgment IN Than Singh (supra) reads as follows:
"12. It is not in dispute that after the petitioner submitted his explanation in the years 1982 and 1983, no further action had been taken. The petitioner had been promoted twice unconditionally. He obtained and vigilance clearance. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the writ petitioner was entitled to raise the question of delay as also the condensation of misconduct. The learned Tribunal, unfortunately, did not address itself to the right question. It is now a well-settled principle of law that validity of a charge-sheet can be questioned on a limited ground. It is also well-settled that normally the court or the Tribunal does not interfere at the stage of show-cause. However, once the disciplinary proceedings are over, there doesnot exist any bar in the way of delinquent officer to raise all contentions including ones relating to invalidity of the charge-sheet. The grounds upon which the correctness or otherwise of the charge- sheet can be questioned are:
(i) If it is not in conformity with law.
(ii) If it discloses bias or pre-judgment of the guilt of the charged employee.
(iii) There is non-application of mind in issuing the charge-sheet.
(iv) If it does not disclose any misconduct.
(v) If it is vague.
(vi) If it is based on stale allegations.
(vii) If it is issued mala fide."
3.7 Shri Luthra further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., T.N.Housing Board, [(2005) 6 SCC 636, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a protracted disciplinary enquiry is not only against the interest of government employee but it has to be avoided in public interest also.
Item No. 32/C-2 32 OA No. 530/2022 3.8 Shri Luthra would further contend that there is unexplained and inordinate delay in issuing the charge- sheet against the applicant after 12 years and in support of his plea he would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P Vs N. Radhakishan, [(1998) 4 SCC 154, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if the delay is unexplained, prejudice to the delinquent employee would be writ large on the face of it.
3.9 Learned counsel would further contend that allowing the department to proceed further with the departmental proceedings after inordinate and unexplained delay would be prejudicial to the applicant, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in J.P. Singh v. Union of India &Ors.., 2010 (1) SLJ 105 (CAT).
3.10 Lastly Shri Luthra would rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Bani Singh, AIR 1990 SC 108, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that inordinate delay in issuance of the charge-sheet vitiates the entire process and the charge memo as well as further proceedings are required to be quashed. He would, therefore, contend that as in the instant OAs there is inordinate and unexplained delay in issuance of the charge-sheet after a gap of more than 12 years, the entire proceedings are required to be quashed and the OAs may be allowed with costs on the respondents.
3.11 In view of the above submissions, Shri Luthra has prayed that the Tribunal may kindly quash and set aside the impugned charge-sheets with all consequential benefits.
*** *** ***
6. We have heard learned counsels for both the partiesand have also gone through the pleadings on record andthe submissions made by the parties.
7. The applicant has been charged that while posting in RCS office during May, 2004 he accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/- from Sh. Satpal Grover & Sh.Amarjeet Chhabra of Serve Sanjhi Society CGHS bycheque favouring his wife Smt. Shasikala in lieu of preparing documents for the society for the purpose ofobtaining clearance of RCS for draw of lots and thus actedin a manner unbecoming of government servant inviolation of the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. A bare reading of the charge leveled againstthe applicant would show that the allegation pertains toacceptance of illegal gratification in May, 2004 while hewas working in the office of RCS. The applicant hascategorically denied the charge leveled against him Item No. 32/C-2 33 OA No. 530/2022 statingthat he was not posted in RCS office during 2003- 2004vide his reply dated 03.07.2009 (Annexure A-4 to OA-1527/2018). It appears that the respondents withoutapplying their mind have issued the charge-sheet to theapplicant thereby alleging a vague charge in respect of anincident which took place more than 12 years back. Onperusal of the charge and other material placed on recordwe find that there is inordinate and unexplained delay ininitiating the disciplinary proceedings against theapplicant. The applicant has specifically raised the plea ofdelay and latches in issuing the charge-sheet to which no satisfactory reply has come-forth from the respondents. Itis well settled that if the delay is inordinate and unexplained it causes great prejudice to the delinquentemployee, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Radhakishn (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also reiterated this principle in Bani Singh (supra) where it hasbeen clearly ruled that inordinate delay in issuance of thecharge-sheet vitiates the entire process and the chargememo as well as further proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside. The matter is required to be givena quietus especially when the respondents are not seriousin the enquiry. Had the respondents been vigilant enoughthey would have acted promptly and issued the charge-sheet immediately when the incident took place. Theyhave failed to provide a sufficient and reasonableexplanation for the delay in initiating the disciplinaryproceedings against the applicant. It is well settled thatdelay defeats justice.
*** *** ***
9. If one has regard to the above, it is trite that delaywhich is unexplained and unreasonable would causeprejudice to the delinquent employee. Such delay clearlymanifests the lack of seriousness on the part of the DA inpursuing the charges against the employee. In the event ofany employee deviating from path of honesty, efficiencyand diligence, action should expeditiously be taken as perprescribed procedure. The Supreme Court has laid downthe principles holding that unexplained and unreasonabledelay per se results in prejudice to the charged officerexcept when the employer can show that the employeewas responsible for delay or is otherwise able to explainthe delay. While evaluating the impact of the delay, thecourt must consider the nature of the charge, itscomplexity and for what reason the delay has occurred. Inthe instant matters the respondents have not tenderedany explanation as to the delay in issuing the charge-sheet, rather a vague charge has been leveled against him,that too, without application Item No. 32/C-2 34 OA No. 530/2022 of mind. The respondentshave failed to provide a sufficient and reasonableexplanation for the delay in initiating the disciplinaryproceedings against the applicant. We are, therefore, ofthe considered view that the delay in issuing the charge-sheet after 12 years has greatly prejudiced the applicant inthe matter of his defense."
29. In OA No. 3551/2017 decided by the Tribunal on 17.07.2023 titled Ashok Kumar Verma Vs. Delhi Development Authority. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under: -
"13. Thus, the settled position in law is that the Departmental Enquiry should be initiated without delay and inordinate delay without proper explanation for the same furnishes ground for quashing the same. It is also settled that the Departmental Enquiry once initiated should be completed expeditiously and long delay in completing the enquiry without proper justification can also be ground to quash the enquiry.
14. The common thread running in all these judgments is that if there is an inordinate delay in initiating the departmental enquiry and there is no sufficient and proper explanation for the delay, then the inordinate delay furnishes a ground for quashing the departmental enquiry.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the charge sheet was issued to the applicant 08.08.2017, i.e., after a gap of more than 23 years from the date of alleged misconduct. Now after a gap of more than 23 years, the impugned charge-sheet dated 08.08.2017 has been issued without giving any justification, whatsoever, for the inordinate delay. Delay in issuing the charge-sheet for more than 23 years itself indicated great prejudice to the applicant in the form of mental agony as well as monetary loss.
16. Hence, this case is squarely covered by the ratio of the aforesaid judgments referred herein above, where no explanation has been put-forth by the respondents in issuing the charge-sheet."
Item No. 32/C-2 35 OA No. 530/2022
30. However, before going into the merits of the case, we reproduce the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, various High Courts/Tribunals on the ground of inordinate delay. In the matter of Rajendra Shankar Shukla (reported in (2018) 14 SCC 92), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the unexplained inordinate delay in issuing the charge sheet, made the following observations:
"12. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the High Court. However, it is necessary for us to highlight a few facts which were brought to our notice during the course of submissions made by learned counsel. The first issue of concern is the enormous delay of about 7 years in issuing a charge sheet against Shukla. There is no explanation for this unexplained delay. It appears that some internal discussions were going on within the Bank but that it took the Bank 7 years to make up its mind is totally unreasonable and unacceptable. On this ground itself, the charge sheet against Shukla is liable to be set aside due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in its issuance.
13. What compounds the default on the part of the Bank is that Shukla was placed in a higher category as a Manager on 19th July, 1994 while all these discussions were going on in the Bank. He was also allowed to cross the efficiency bar on 12th August, 1996 again while the discussions were going on. Surely, if the Bank was serious about proceeding against Shukla for misconduct, they would not only have taken prompt action in issuing a charge sheet but would not have granted him the benefit of being placed in a higher category or crossing the efficiency bar.
xxxxxxxx
19. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal filed by the Bank also on the ground that the punishment of dismissal could not have been imposed on Shukla after his superannuation."
Item No. 32/C-2 36 OA No. 530/2022
31. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in WP No. 4145/2015 titled Dinesh Awasthi Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others decided on 14.06.2022, after surveying various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of inordinate delay, observed as under:
"8- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the charge-sheet was issued on 12.05.2014 for the misconduct pertaining to the year 2002-03 and 2003-04. Thereafter, preliminary enquiry was also got conducted by the then Deputy Collector and District Vigilance Officer. Thereafter, no action was taken against the petitioner for more than 10 years. It is only in the year of 2014 charge-sheet has been issued and the petitioner has been asked to participate in the enquiry and to conclude the same within a period of 03 months. Moreover, as per the notification No. C/5- 2/87/3/11 dated 16.04.1987, the State Government has specifically asked all the departments to conclude the departmental enquiry within a year. Pendency of the departmental enquiry for more than 18 years has caused great prejudice to the petitioner and had to suffer mental agony as well as monetary loss. Hence, this case is squarely covered by the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Pratap Singh Chouhan (supra). No explanation for issuance of charge- sheet after a delay of more than 10 years has been putforth by the respondents in their reply."
32. The Hon'ble Madras High Court has also dealt with the issue of inordinate delay in issuing a charge memorandum in Union of India vs. Central Administrative Tribunal in W.P. No. 16651/2019, observing as under:
"7. In the present case on hand, though a complaint has been received from the Assessee immediately, there is no need to wait for seven long years to issue a charge memo and therefore, it is obvious that there is a delay in issuance of charge memo. It is true that the Hon-ble Supreme Court reported in (1996) 3 SCC 157 in the case of Secretary to Item No. 32/C-2 37 OA No. 530/2022 Government, Prohibition & Excised Department Vs L.Srinivasan, while deciding the case of delay in issuance of charge memo, held that in the nature of charges, it would take a long time to detect embezzlement and fabrication of false records which should be done in secrecy. The matter may take time and that sufficient evidence have got to be taken before the issuance of charge memo and the limitation cannot be applicable in those cases and that the charge memo cannot be interfered on the ground of delay. But, at the same time, the present case on hand does not fall in that category for the simple reason that the Department, inspite of receipt of the complaint from the Assessee, failed to act upon it with an immediate effect, proceed with the enquiry by issuance of charge memo and the Department would have completed the said exercise well before seven years instead of sleeping over for seven years. In a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank and others Vs Rajendra Shankar Shukla, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 92, it was held in Paragraph Nos.12 & 13, which are extracted below:~ "12. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the High Court. However, it is necessary for us to highlight a few facts which were brought to our notice during the course of submission made by the learned counsel. the first issue of concern is the enormous delay of about 7 years in issuing a charge- sheet against Shukla. There is no explanation for this unexplained delay. It appears that some internal discussions were going on within the Bank but that it took the Bank 7 years to make up its mind is totally unreasonable and unacceptable. On this ground itself, the chargesheet against Shukla is liable to be set aside due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in its issuance.
13. What compounds the default on the part of the Bank is that Shukla was placed in a higher category as a Manager on 19.07.1994 while all these discussions were going on in the Bank. He was also allowed to cross the efficiency bar on 12.08.1996 again while the discussions were going on. Surely, if the Bank was serious about proceeding against Shukla for misconduct, they would not only have taken prompt action in issuing a charge-sheet but would not have granted him the benefit of being placed in a higher category or crossing the efficiency bar."
8. In view of the above dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, we find substance in the argument advanced by the Applicant, who is the 2nd respondent herein and in view of Item No. 32/C-2 38 OA No. 530/2022 the inordinate delay involved in issuance of charge memo, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is liable to be upheld."
33. We are conscious of the fact that the Charge Memorandum should generally not be interfered with. It is a settled position in law that the Departmental Enquiry should be initiated without delay and inordinate delay without proper explanation for the same furnishes ground for quashing the same. In this case, there is an inordinate delay in initiating the departmental enquiry and there is no sufficient and proper explanation for the delay, the inordinate delay, in the instant case, furnishes a ground for quashing the departmental enquiry. After examination of issues involved in this matter,we are unable to appreciate as to why the respondents chose not to issue any charge memorandum to the applicant for almost 11 (eleven) years, for which there was no satisfactory explanation. It is found that though the incident pertained to year 2006, a charge memo was sought to be issued almost 15 years (in 2021) thereafter. Therefore, it is a fit case where the Charge Memorandum issued against the respondent is liable to be quashed.On perusal of the laid down law and other details discussed supra, we find that there is hardly any explanation for the inordinate and unexplained delay, much less a satisfactory one. Therefore, in the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Item No. 32/C-2 39 OA No. 530/2022 charge memorandum is liable to be quashed and set aside purely on the ground of long inordinate and unexplained delay.
34. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances, we dispose of the present OA by passing the following order: -
i. Impugned charge memorandum dated 01.09.2021 (Annexure-A/1) and consequential proceedings, if any, are quashed and set aside. The applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits.
ii. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
iii. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R. N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/