Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Dinesh Ghanshamdas Gurnani vs M/O Urban Development on 10 April, 2023
i OANGOSS 2017 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAT BENCH, MUMBAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.655 OF 2017 MR. SHRIKRISHNA, MEMBER (A) Dinesh Ghanshamdas Gurnani, Ir. Hindi Translator, Go Estate Manager, R/a Bldg, No.83, Flat No.503, B Wing, Sindhoo CHS, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai 400 089. - Applicant (By Advocate Ms. Swapna Gokhale) Versus 1. Union of India, Through the Secretary te the Govt. of India, Ministry of Urban Development, DNrectorate of Estates, Nirman Bhavan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi 110 108. 2, The Director of Estate, Nirman Bhavan, Maulana Azad Road, New Dethi 110 108, 3. The Estate Manager, 3° Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, 101 M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. - Respondents (By Advocate Ms. Vaishali Chaudhari} Reserved on 13.03.2023 Pronounced on. 1 04,2033 ORDER
Por: Shri Krishna, Member (A) Applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"8.a, That this Honourable Tribunal be graciously pleased ta set aside Order No.C-74071/8/2076-V8C a QANGSSS2017 dated 14.06.2017 and Order dated 06.02 2017 passed by fhe Respandent withho! iding of one increment for fhree years without cumulative effect &.0. That such order and further order or orders be passed in the facts and circumstances of fhe case may require.
&.c. That cost of the application be provided for * Brief facts as narrated in the OA are:-
2.1. ~The applicant is working as Junior Hindi Translator fram 18.06.1993 in the office of Estate Manager, Directorate of Estate, Mumbai. While working as Jr. Hindi Translator, in the year 2007-2008, the applicant was given additional charge of dealing with allotment of Type | Govt. quarter for Group D Central Government employees af Mumbai. The process of allotment was fully manual, A case of fraudulent allotment of Government quarters came to light and was investigated by | the CBI, Mumbai. It was noticed that seven allotments were made in the name of fictitious persons.
2.2. it is stated by the applicant that he assisted in processing around seventy to eighty DE-2 forms per month. in these DE-2 Apofication Forms, column number 11 to 17 were found Blank. It has been alleged that being the dealing hand, apolicant was responsible to scrutinize the DE-2 forme : 30 OAND.6SS/2017 for Type | Quarters and bring deficlency/shortcomings to the notice of the supervisory officers. However, while processing the above allotments, applicant failed to notice that the application forms are incomplete and the column No.11 to 17 which alleged fo give vital information about the applicants _ were left blank. Since the claimants have shown themselves as employees in the office of Naval Dockyard, Mumbai and the name and date of the forwarding authority of Naval Dockyard was not appearing in the forms, he was supposed to verify the genuineness of the form before making proposal of allciment and also accepting the acceptance farms submitted by the allattees. The said lapse on the applicant's part has led to allotment of Government accormmodation to fictitious persons and thus, deprived the eligible Government servants from getting allotment of quarters in thelr narne. This has also caused lass to government of India. --
2.3. The respondents have initiated disciplinary oroceedings vide Memorandum of Charges under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 issued under F.No.15/2/2011- EMM/154 dated 17.10.2014 te the applicant alleging failure to 30 OA NoO53/2017 maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and thus, he contravened the provision of Rules 3(1}0) and 307} af CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, a copy of same is annexed as Annexure A-3. He contested the proceedings seriously and the order has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 06.02.2017 without considering the defence put forth by the applicant. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of withholding of one increment for three years without cumulative effect of the applicant.
2.4. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was rejected. Therefore, applicant approached this Tribunal by filing the present OA against the. order passed by the Appellate Authority on 14.06.2017 and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 06.02.2017 with | a prayer to quash and set aside both the impugned orders passed by the respondents withholding of one increment for thres years without cumulative effect.
3. On notice, the respondents resisted the OA by a reply dated 21.02.2019 and denied all the adverse allegations OA NGOS 201F Sate and, averments raised therein and stated that the impugned orders passed by the respondents against the applicant is fully justified and there are no merits in the case. Ht is submitted by the respondents' counsel that disciplinary proceedings were inated agaiiist the applicant after proper investigation and on the basis of documents and oral evidences at appropriate stage of the disciplinary proceedings and imposed the penalty of withholding of one increment of pay for a pericad of three years without cumulative effect and without adversely affecting his pensions. The applicant was awarded reasonable and sufficient coportunity and granted personal hearing to defend his case. Therefore, there is neither procedural flaw nor violation of the statutory rules as respondents have complied. with the rules and provisions of law in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
3.1. itis submitted by the respondents that His incorrect and baseless to say that the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have not considered the facts. during enauiry proceedings. After examining the wark and nature of the aoolicant which he hag admitted and proved during the 6 OA No.5 2017 course of the Estate Department Enquiry that he was looking after the work of Type | GPRA Quarters at Mumbai, then respondents has imposed the minor penalty by stopping one increment for three years. Therefore, the present OA has no ground to grant relief as claimed and the same is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal.
4, The applicant filed 'fejoinder to the reply on 19.03.2019 and additional rejoinder on 07.10.2019, thereby denying all the contentions raised in the reply and reiterating the grounds raised in the O.A. for claiming the relief. ft is denied by the applicant that Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities have considered the facts during the said enquiry proceedings as they have not appreciated the facts of the. record and they arrived into the conclusion of the charge imposed as proved on the basis of assumption and surmises. 4.4, The applicant submits that he has also produced during the course of enquiry some DE-2 forms against which Government accommodation which were allotted to genuine beneficiaries where Column 11 to 17 of DE-2 Form were also left blank. Further, he submits that as ner the statement of zt z oo OA No.655/2017 witness the said information in above-mentioned columns are not at all vital. Hf the said information would have provided by those alleged seven persons for whom the applicant had found application forms, there is no mechanism in the Estate Office, Mumbal to check the genuineness or verification of stamps, seals and signatures put on the DE-2 forms forwarded by the department concerned and this fact is proved in the disciplinary proceedings. The applicant submits that the Disciplinary Authority has raised the point while passing the impugned order for the first time about comparison of original seal of Naval Dockyard and alleged fictitious seal of Naval Dockyard, it was never asked during the enquiry proceedings nor even inquiry. Officer ulfered a single observation or findings about the same to which applicant could not get the opportunity to submit his explanation. Therefore, it is clear that Disciplinary Authority hes awarded the penalty based on their conclusion which needs to be set aside.
4.2. Further, if is stated by the applicant that Disciplinary Authorily has admitted the fact that the applicant was QA Noe. 6322017 working as Junior Hindi Translator and assigned clerical work. The allegation alleged by the Disciplinary Authority of not properly pointing out the minor difference in the office seal of Naval Dockyard Is just baseless. He also states that the then Assistant Estate Manager, Mr. NM.M.Banerjee was head of the Office and was the primary authority amongst the persons dealing with the processing of the said allotment. in the same matter, he was acquitted by his Disciplinary Authority which is the Appellate Authority in the present case. The same Appellate Authority has applied different yard sticks and different pararneters while deciding | the case of Mr. Banerjee but used completely adverse criteria while deciding applicant's case and observed that "As # is the. case of negligence and not 'Misconduct in recommending provisional permission for construction without ascertaining all facts the delinquent officer be given minor penalty of cansure." The copy of the same order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 24.11.2016 in case of Assistant Estate Manager is annexed as Annexure A-10 which is in violation of principles of natural fustice.
Q OA No. 6558/2017The applicant has placed rellance on the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Bhaskar Chandra Mohapatra Vs. The Disciplinary Authority, UCO on 14.07.2015 and has remitted the maiter back to the Disciplinary Authority to re-enquire into the matter. 4.4, The applicant also placed reliance on the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. M.L.Bansal on 20.09.2018 and observed that :
'In the light of ihe setiied legal position and having considered fhe facts of the present case. we find absolutely no reasan fo defer with the course of ection adopted by the learned Single Judge. in our view in the light of the admitted pasion that the charge against the respondent related to procedural ineqularilies committed by hint in the year 7994 and thal too when he was only par of the hlerarchy of officers, which was responsible for processing the loan proposal, the learned Single Judge was justified in modifying the penally imposed on the respondent by taking inio consideration respondeni's 29 years of almost blemishless service as also the fact that ihe penalty order related fo the year 2015 in no case ean the court interfere with the quantum of penalty." -
4.8. The applicant states that the charges alleged against him are only of procedural irregularities and also he was only a part of chain of the persons dealing with the processing of tne said allotment as he was nether the 10 OA No.65S2017 original forwarding authority to the allotment of quarters ner the final sanctioning authority. The penalty imposed upon him neither commensurate with the charges levelled nor the same are based on concrete evidence in order to arrive at the conclusion that he must have committed the alleged misconduct with fraudulent object to allot Government quarters on the basis of fake and forged documents. This is the admitted position by the respondents themselves that there is no machinery to check the genuineness and verify the information provided. tn fact, in the enquiry report dated 06.05.2016 in paragraph No.6, inquiry Officer admitted that there was no mechanism in the Estate Office, Mumbai to check the.
genuineness/ verification of stamps, seals and signature put on the DE-2 forms forwarded by the concerned department.
4.6. The applicant has submitted in his additional rejoinder by producing the copies of few forms by which allatment was allegedly made to some fictitious persons which is annexed as Annexure A-8. He further submits that from the im OA No.GSS/2017 comparison of both DE-2 forms ie. of genuine and fictitious person, the round seal mark, stamp and signature of Naval Dockyard, appeared to be same in both nlaces, that no sensible parson: even after careful perusal but could not identify any discrepancy or duplicate seal and stamp used in the stamp. After receiving of the inquiry report, applicant submitted his representation on 07.12.2016 in which he points out that the above said contention with regard to comparison of the DE-2 forms, he submits that in both these forms it is not possible for any prudent person to identify the form submitted by the fictitious person because these column Nos.11 to 17 were left blank. | a7. The applicant submits that his contentions has not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority while passing the imougned order because as per deposition of PW-10, Shri Sudhir Chavan, the dealing hand used to check the eligibility of the department, basic pay, name, designation, date of appointment, date of joining, date of retirement, departments address, iyps of entidement and whether ft is i? OANG 655801 Oy a tn Kod "sah duly forwarded by the concerned department or not and | the applicant has already stated in his representation, para 13, about the relevance of column Nos.11 to 17 in DE- 2 forms.
48. The leamed counsel for the applicant submits that the information to be incorporated in Colurnn Nos.11 to 17 of the Application Forms is reproduced here :
"a@). Gal No.t? ef DE-2 form, the applicant has to fumish the information as to whether he is an Central deputation under Central Staffing Scheme. The applicants entiied for allotment of Type-} quarters are Group D emplayees; hance deputation under Central Staffing Scheme does not arise in case of Group-D employees. in short, fhe information was frelevant and not mandatory 5}. in regard to Cal No.i2, the applicant has to fumish whether he is working in an office of Government of New Delhi The employees working In eligible office and eligible zone are considered only for GPRA in Mumbai Hence, the information against cna. 72 af the DE-2 form Is irrelevant.
0}. in regard to Col. Na.13, if is anty in the case of female applicants, their mariial status has to be furnished. All the seven cases pointed aut by the CBI are pertaining fo male employees.
cg). In regard fo Col. Na.14, the applicant nas to furnish the information whether he/she, his'her spouse is occupying accommodation allotted by fhe Die OF Estates (General Poolfother pool? If yes. give details.
The applicant has fo furnish the information as some departments also have their own poof (Desartment Poo) besides General Poot, ened, hand S a & acs 634 3 ne iJ aes pat vend é}). in regard lo Col. No.1 5, the applicant has fo furnish ihe information whether he is debarred from allotment of Government residence, if yes, up fo which date. Here the self declaration of thé employee is not important as his Controlling Authority fas to vategorically cerify that the applicant is not debarred, fl. in regard Col.No.16, the apnticant has fo furnish the information whether heShe his/her spouse dependent children own a house within the jurisdiction of the local Municipality or any adjoining Municipality?
if yes, indicate. The ficence fee biif is prepared accordingly. so the Information is essential for the sake of preparation af Jeence fee by Aecounts Branch for the allotted quarter. --
g). in regard fo Col.Ne.17, the applicant has to apt five localilies where allotment is to be considered. The allatment was made as per senionty in the waiting fist and once senionty is cavered vacancy available for allotment was alloited. Henes, this information was not mandatory since if was purely choice of applicant." 4.8, The applicant's counsel further submits that this analysis itself is sufficient as it indicate the information in. Calumn Nos.1] to 17 was not mandatory as there was no classification of mandatory information/optional information in DE-2 form in regard to Col.No.11 to 17 are required. in fact, Column Nos.12, 13, 14 and 16 are the declaration signed by the applicants and for Column No.15, a certificate was issued by the Controlling office and column No.17 was fully optional.
Whenever, if there is any mandatory information is required, id OA Nogsa/2017 the Government department puts an 'asterisk' mark with foot. note that the information is mandatory. But here in the present case, there was no such mark in the columns in question, 4.40. it is submitted by the applicant that in the final brief of the Presenting Officer under Rule 14(19) of the CCS {COA} Rules, 1865,he has mentioned that it is crystal clear that the fictitious persons have furnished applications by using stamps, seals and doing counterfeit signatures for getting allotments In the name of persons who were stated to be on strength of the Naval Dockyard intentionally. if the Column Nos.17 to 17 were filled in by the fictitious person, even then forged allotments could have been taken place because there was no mechanism in the Estate: Office, . Mumbai to check the genuineness/verification of stamps, seals and signature put on the DE-2 forms forwarded by the concemed departments.
4.41. it is admitted In unambiguous manner by the Presenting Officer while representing the department that even if these columns were filled in, the fictitious allotment could not have been avoided first para on the last nage of his brief dated mes Lay OANG.6S52017 16.03.2016 (Annexure A-5) under Rule 14(19) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Similarly, the Enquiry Officer has also agreed with the views of the Presenting Officer vide para 6 of the enquiry report dated 16.05.2016 which is annexed as Annexure A-6. The Ministry introduced 'e-awas' a mandatory online process while realising the shortcamings in the process of allotment. The applicant has been made scapegoat for sysiem failure.
4.12. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited our attention to the instruction No.3 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964 wherein it has been categorically stated that major penalty proceedings should be initiated only when there is 'gross irregularity or negligence in the discharge of. official duties with a dishonest motive'. Capy of this instruction is annexed as Annexure A-? and in the present proceedings, nothing has emerged that there has been any dishonest motive on the part of the applicant [tis stated that penalising the applicant when all his actions were In good faith is against the settled principles.
4,13, 16 OANG 6553/2017 The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following case laws :
(i). S. Govinda Menon Vs. Union of India (AIR 1967 SC 1274) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that "disciplinary proceedings cannot be taken against public servant for official acts done in goad falth not constituting dishonesty or deliberate negligence".
(il). Union of India and others Vs... Ahmed, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1022 dealing with the aspect of negligence and misconduct, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "There may be negligence in performance of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation, may be negligence in discharge of duties but would not constitute misconduct." In the entire proceedings, dishonesty or deliberate negligence on the part of the applicant has not been proved. Therefore, this judgment is applicable in the present case, (HH). Kameshwar Prasad Shreevastava \s.
Union of india and others passed on 05.07.1990 by the Hon'ble Lucknow High Court reported in (1994) 15 ATC 494 and held that "disciplinary proceedings cannot be taken against public servant for official act 1? OA No.655/2017 done in good faith not constituting dishonesty or deliberate negligence'. As per Section 3(22) of General Clauses Act, the definition of "good faith" as "a thing shall be deemed to be done in good faith where it is in fact done honestly whether if is done negligently or not".
4d, The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the impugned order dated 06.02.2017, the Disciplinary Authority has stated that:
fi) The orginal office seal of Naval Dockyard is quite differant from which is in the fetitious applications forms.
A vigilant look could have differentiated fhe both easily and | fi} The pay scale mentioned in. ali 7 fictitious applications form, Le. 2280-65-3950 under 5° CPC is. fake and the basic pay is also inconsistent to the corresponding scale of pay. [ft proves that the Charged Officer bas felled to examine the application forms propeny 4.18. in this regard, the applicant submitted that these allegations were not at all there in the original. Charge Memorandum No. 15/2/2011-EMM/164 dated 17.10.2011.
Thus, the Disciplinary Authority has gone inte the scops of Charged Mernorandum while analysing evidence on record, GA No S58 2017 pene.
ee ~ The said Authority is being quasijudicial authority, it is not permissible for him fo go beyond four corners of the original allegations. The applicant was the lowest officer to scrutinize DE-2 forms in the year 2008-2009. His immediate supervisory officer was the Head Clerk and he was required to carry out overall verification, Thereafter, the Assistant Estate Manager was to finally allot the Government accommodation and everyone in the channel was equally responsible.
4.16. The learned counsel brought to our notice that the then Assistant Estate Manager, the Head of Office was also subjected to Disciplinary Proceedings. However, he has been awarded mildest minor penalty of "Censure" by the same authority who acted as Appellate Authority in applicant's case. The Appellate Authority discarded each and every defence put forth by the applicant and the same authority, however, while acting as a Disciplinary Authority, in the case of then Assistant Estate Manager (AEM) has arrived at a conclusion that the said AEM has not committed any misconduct. Therefore, the Appellate Authority has used different yardsticks in the cases of the applicant and the then Assistant Estate Manager. The 19 QA No 68872017 proceedings are violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of india and also do not fulfl any of the parameters set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 4.17, i is 3 settled principle in Jaw that a Government/Public servant can be penalized under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for a misconduct. While deciding Civil Appeal Nos.266-267 of 1993, Union of India and others Vs. K.K.Dhawan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down six parameters fo initiate action against a government servant which is reproduced as under ~ "(h Where the officer had acted in a manner as wauid reflect on his reputation for integrity ar good faith or devotion fo duty;
{i} if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty:
Oi i he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant:
fi) if he had acied negligently or that he omiifed the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of ihe statutory powers;
fv) ifhe had acted in order to unduly favour a party:
fv. if he hed been actuated by corrupt motive, however email ihe bribe may be because Lord Coke said jong age 'though the bribe may be smail, yet the fauit is great"."
A.¥8. The applicant submits that all the above-mentioned parameters are absent from the present proceedings.He further submits that the administration has miserably failed to 20 OA No.655/2017 show any nexus between person obtaining allotment of Goverment quarters fraudently and the applicant. He again relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.08.2002 in the case of Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India in Appeal (Civil) No.5055/2002 and held that "it may be observed that the expression "suificlency of evidence" postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. Evidence, however voluminous if may &8, which Is neither relevant in a broad | sense or establishes any nexus between the alleged miscanduct and the charged officer is not evidence in law. "Therefore, this DA should be allowed.
5. We have heard learned counsels for both the parties. at length and perused the pleadings and documents filed on record, We have also perused the enauiry report of the Inquiry Officer(O) dated 16.05.2016. ft will be relevant to produce the finding and conclusions of the Enquiry Officer for ready reference as under:
"4, The C.O. was a dr Hind? Translatar basically duty bound for promotion of Hind! wark in Estate Office, Mumbai. Due to shoniage of staffs he was entrusted with additional work of allotment of Typée-l and afterwards also for allotment of a OA No.655/2017 Type The lagose on the parly of C.Q. was that he failed fo point out seven applications relating to Tyoe-l quarters where Col. No.1? to 17 were left biank and ullimately {hose seven cases were found fo be allotted fo some ficitous persons as worker of Naval Dockyard, Mumbai, an eligible Central Government Officer for alloiment under Genaral Pool in Mumba.
2. Those applications for submitted in the Estate Offce Mumbai and i was diarized after making/perusal of Head Clerk, AEM and EM. Marked applications then pass to the ©.Q. for serufiny and preparation of praposal for waiting list:
3. These applications for duly forwarded under the signature and sfamp of Naval Dockyard Officer and their office respectively. in deposition PUL Sq RS. Salian and PVAT) Sr ALM Manure. stated fhat the Seal and signaiures have not put by thelr department in deposition before the undersigned PIAL3, 4. 14 all CPD staffs stated thal before giving possession fo 4 allottes ihey always used fo check their idenily Card. Thus, f is seen that fhose fictitious applicanis had prepared Seal & siamo of Naval Dockyard and also prepared identiy card in fhe name of seven applicants. Sn M Muralidharan PWS and Ms. Meena Kharat PV 7 deposed thai incomplete agplications shauid not have been faken in fhe wailing Ist ie. should have been rejected. Mr Muralidharan also started that fing up af Calum Nos.11-77 is mandatary. Ms. Meena Kharal has also stated that all the columns of a form should be filled up. But in Question No, & of cross examination of Ms. Kharat she agreed that informatian regarding Col.No. fe, 13, 74 & 76 are available in declaration signed by the apoticanis, CoalNo.?é certificate is issued by Controliing Officer and Col Not? is fully optional.
4.) have also observed the deposifien of Sr Sudinr Chavan, PYW-10 in repiv fo Question Na.?
where he is stated thal basically they used to 22 OA No.684/201 check the eligibility of Department, Basic Pay. Name, Designation, date of appointment, date of joining, dale of retirement, address of Department. Type of enitiement and whether the application was duly forwarded by the Department or not. He also stated that Col. No. 11 to 17 were not used fo be scrutinized sericusly This statement was corobated by the documents {D1 fo D4) submitted by the C.O. where some other applicants were allotted Government Accommodation on the basis of applica fians in which Oal.No. tt fo 17 were lef biank, So NM Mahure, PUGTT in his deposifian before cross examination against Question Not & é admitted that above anplicatians were fonvarded by dis office under the signature of Asstt. Personal Manager, Naval Dockyard, Mumibal alfhough Col. No.7] fo 17 of thase applications were left hlank. If meéans the applications for allotment forwarded by Naval Dockyards, Mumbal were not always scrutinized senousily at their end.
a. in regards to allegation af pecuniary loss fo the Government of india, the C.O. has pointed out fhat af that paint of ime there was no demand for Type-l quarters. As a resuif, a large number of Type-! units were fying unallotted ie. surplus. To utilise those surnius units the Estate Office. Mumbai allowed employees of Naval Dockyard Department fo apply for Type-! units in the year 2005-06 and also some units were proposed to be placed in favour of CISF Depe ariment. fi means had those seven units not been allotted. hase might have remained vacant, Therefore elevation of pecuniary loss and depriving the eligible Government servants from getting allotmant in their names hardly stands,
6.) am also agreed with the observation of Presenting Officer that there was no mechanism in the Estate Office, Mumbai fo check the genuinensssveriiication af stamos, seals and signatures put on the De-2 forms fonwartied by the conoemed departments.
be fob OA Noa55/2017 From the above-said discussions, evidence (oral & documentary) proves that the CO has not verified all the columns of the 7 nos. of application forms for allotment of Type-! quarters for which the unauthorisedsictitious person got allotment. Since thay are not employees of Naval Doekyard government sustained joss towards House Rent affawanoe and Licence Fee for that period of their oCcupancy.
in view af above findings, | am of the opinion that the Article of Charge is proved fo the extent that he has committed misconduct by nol properly scrutinizing the forms. Hence, his negligence in dealing with 7 nos. of cases is proved & thereby vidlated Rule 3¢7)(i) of the CCS (Conduet Rule, 7964)},° &. We find that the Enquiry officer has given a finding that the applicant was a Jr Hindi Translator basically duty bound for promotion of Hindi work in Estate Office, Mumbai. Due to shortage of staff, ne was entrusted with additional work of allotment of Type-} and afterwards also for allotment of Type-IV. The lapse on the party of C.O. was that he failed to point out seven applications relating to Type-| quarters where Col. No.1 to 17 were left blank and ulfimately those seven cases were found to be allotted to some fictitious persons as worker of Naval Dockyard, Mumbai, an eligible Central Severnment Officer for allotment under General Pool in oy Lae) th oad {017 Mumbai it is not in dispute that the applications were submitted in the Estate Office Mumbai and it was diarized atter making/perusal of Head Clerk, Assistant Estate Manager and Estate Manager, were marked and then passed to the applicant for scrutiny and preparation of proposal for wailing list.
6.1. The Inquiry Officer ([O) has also given a finding that the applications were duly forwarded under the signature and stamp of Naval Dockyard Officer and their office respectively. in deposition PW-8 Sri R.S.Salian and PyWet1 Sri N.M.Mahure stated that the Seal and signatures have not put by their department. In deposition before the Inquiry Officer PW-3, 4, 14 all CPWD staffs stated that before giving possession fo a allottee they always used fo check their Identity Card. Thus, is seen that those fictitious applicants had prepared Seal & stamp of Naval Dockyard and also prepared identity card in the name of seven applicants. He has further noted that in Question No.8 of cross examination of Ms. Kharat, she agreed thal information regarding Col.No.12, 13, 14 & 16 Bic) OA No.GSS/2017 are available in declaration signed by the applicants, Gol.No.15 cerificate is issued by Controlling Officer and Col.No. 17 Is fully optional, 6.2. | The Inquiry officer further gave a finding that he has also ooserved the deposition of Sri Sudhir Chavan, PW-10 in reply to Question Na.? where he has stated that basically they used to check the eligibility of Department, Basic Pay, Name, Designation, date af appointment, date of joining, date of retirement, address of Department, Type of enttiement and whether the application was duly forwarded by the Department or net. He alsa stated thal Cal. No. 11 to 17 were not used to be scrutinized seriously. This statement was corroborated by the documents (D1 to D4) submitted by the C.O. where some other applicants were allotted Government Accommodation on the basis of applications in which Col.No.11 to 17 were left blank. Sri NM Manure, PW-i1 In his deposition before cross examination against Question No.1 & 2 admitted that above applications were forwarded by his office under ihe signature of Asstt. Personal Manager, Nava! Dockyard, Murnbai although Col. No.11 to 17 of those applications were left blank. iti means the applications for allotment forwarded by Naval Dockyards, Mumbai were not always scrutinized seriously at their end.
6.3. The Inquiry officer further notes in para 6 of his findings that he also agreed with the observation of Presenting Officer that there was no mechanism in the Estate Office, Mumbai to check the genuineness/verification of stamps, seals and signatures put on the De-2 forms forwarded by the concerned departments.
6.4. The applicant was appointed as Junior Hindi Translator on 18.06.1993 in the office of Estate Manager. Mumbai. While working as Junior Hindi Translator in 2007-2008, the applicant was given additional charge to deal with the allotment of Type | Government Quarters for Group 'D' Central Government employees at Mumbai and the process of allotment was fully manual. During the course of CBI investigation, it was found that seven ailoiments were made in the name of fictitious OerSoans, 27 OA No.655/2017 The applicant along with the Assistant Estate Manager were sublected to disciplinary proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of withholding of ane increment for three years without cumulative effect of the applicant. However, the Assistant Estate Manager who was the Approving Authority was given a minor penalty of "Censure" only. The applicant filed appeal against the order of imposition of minor penalty of the Disciplinary Authority before the Appellate Authority Le. Director of Estates. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 14.06.2017 relected the appeal of the applicant on the ground that the Presenting Officer is supposed to present the facts of the case on behalf of the Disciplinary:
Authority fo prove the charges against the Charged Officer and personal contradictory opinions are uncalled for and can at best be taken as his incompetence to perform the task assigned to him. He also mentioned that mo motives could be brought out during the enquiry proceedings, and therefore only a minor penalty has been Hniposec an him. Ne has further noted that this is a case wea oe .4 OANG.GSS2017 of negligence and lack of devotion to duty that has caused considerable loss to the Government exchequer. He also noted that the observations of Disciplinary Authority clearly indicate/proving that a vigilant look at the entries in DE~2 forms and sense of devotion to duty could have avoided such dubious allotments to ineligible persons. He has also noted that the applicant has presented wrong information to the Assistant Estate Manager. However, he has not specified what wrong information was furnished by the applicant to the Estate Manager.
i. We find that the applicant was only @ Junior Hind! Translator. He was given the additional work of processing the allotment of Government Quarters for. Group 'D' employees during the year 2007-2008. The record dees not show that he was given any training as how to deal with the processing of the application forms. The raspondents have also admitted that since the system was not digitized, entire work was being done manually. We aiso find that the columns in the application form from SI.No.7? to 17 have also Kept blank in both application forms which were genuine and fake. The applicant was only a small functionary in the fong chain of hierarchy to deal with the allotment of quarters, and that too as an additional work for which neither he was equipped nor he was given any training.
7.4. The apolicant has not been trained in the forensic science whether the seal put in the application form was genuine or fake. Therefore, without having given any training to the applicant, for which he was neither recruited nor equipped to deal with the job assigned to him, it cannot be presumed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority have avoided dubious allotment to the ineligible persans. t is also not correct to arrive at the canclusion that the applicant. was negligent in his work and there was lack of devotion ta duty on his part as he was neither recruited for this job nor given any training to handle the additional charge assigned to him.
hen We further find that the Assistant Estate , 36 OA No.6Sa/2017 Manager who was the authority to decide the allotment has been given a minor penalty only of "Censure" while the applicant has been given the minor penalty of withholding of one increment for three years. tis a settled jaw that it is the ultimate responsibility of the Accepting Authority who {s the final authority te decide the allatment after applying his own mind. Therefore, imposing the withheiding of one increment for three years is not justified and same is found to be unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary.
8. in the light of above discussion, we are of the view that the order imposing the penalty on the applicant is not justified. Therefore, impugned orders imposing -- penalty of withholding one increment for three years are liable to be quashed and accordingly are quashed. The OA is allowed.
$. There shall be no order as to cosis.
(Shri Kristina) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A) Member (J)