Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sanjay Pratap Singh S/O M.P. Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, ... on 4 January, 2008
ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. Sanjay Pratap Singh, a member of the Indian Administrative Service, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram and Union Territories (AGMUT) Cadre, applicant herein, takes strong exception to the chargesheet dated 2.2.2006 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on variety of grounds, in this Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Brief facts, as may need necessary mention for the limited relief, however, as prayed at this stage, reveal that the applicant from time to time has been posted at Delhi. He had also been transferred to other places like Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Daman & Diu and Lakshadweep. The impugned chargesheet, however, pertains to a period when the applicant was posted at New Delhi. It is the case of applicant that he was posted as Project Director, Urban Basic Services under the Government of NCT of Delhi, and remained on the aforesaid post till 20.2.1998 whereafter he was relieved to join as Special Commissioner (Transport), Government of NCT of Delhi. Even though, transferred from the office of Special Commissioner (Transport) to Director, Delhi Energy Development Authority (DEDA) on 7.4.1998, but he was officially relieved some time in September, 1998 only. He demitted the office as Director, DEDA in March, 1999, and at the time when the present Application came to be filed he is posted as Secretary, Commission for OBC under the Government of NCT of Delhi. The chargesheet issued against the applicant lists three articles of charge, which read as follows:
Article of charge-I Sh. S.P.Singh, IAS (AGMU:84) while posted and functioning as Project Director, Urban Basic Services (UBS) in the Urban Development Department of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi purchased a Tata Sumo No. DL6CA 8591 on 30.11.1997 unauthorisedly without the approval of the Competent Authority. The said Sh. Singh unauthorisedly brought the said Tata Sumo along with him when he was transferred out of the Urban Development Department and posted as Special Commissioner (Transport) and Director, Delhi Energy Development Agency in 1998 and kept the said vehicle for his personal use right through the year 1998 till November, 1998. The said Sh. Singh had not got any history sheet and log book prepared for the said Tata Sumo as a result of which the expenditure incurred on it towards POL and maintenance could not be recorded. The said Sh. Singh also fabricated a back dated letter to show that the vehicle was sent to Election Department.
Thus, Sh. S.P.Singh committed misconduct in the aforesaid manner and failed to maintain absolute integrity and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
Article of charge-II The said Sh. S.P.Singh, while functioning as Director DEDA, purchased a Maruti DL3CJ 8262 unauthorisedly without obtaining the prior approval of the Competent Authority. The said Sh. Singh used the said Maruti car for his personal use.
Thus Sh. S.P.Singh committed misconduct in the aforesaid manner and failed to maintain absolute integrity and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
Article of charge-III The said Sh. S.P.Singh while functioning as Director, DEDA, created a fake file No. PA/MD/1998-99/IITF to favour M/s Mandali, R-72, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi to award the work of preparing a concept for designing and supervision of DEDA stall in India International Trade Fair, 1998.
Thus Sh. S.P.singh committed misconduct in the aforesaid manner and failed to maintain absolute integrity and conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
Challenge to the chargesheet has been summed up by the Division Bench of this Tribunal then seized of the matter vide orders dated 29.6.2007. The order aforesaid reads as follows:
Heard the learned Counsel for applicant.
2. Prima-facie, applicant has prayed for quashment of the charge sheet on the following grounds:
The charges framed in the present charge sheet have already been laid at rest, after investigation detailed by an order passed on 15.03.2002 by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi. It was accepted by the higher authorities.
Now, after lapse of over 8 years, a charge sheet with similar charges has again been given to applicant, which is against the principles of natural justice, as has been clearly laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh 1991 (16) ATC 514 as well as P.V.Mahadevan v. MDTN Housing Board 2005 SCC (L and S) 861. This detailed charge sheet is without any valid explanations and reasons for this delay and hence smacks of arbitrariness.
The Cadre Controlling Authority of the applicant, who is an IAS officer in the AGMU Cadre is the Department of Personnel and Training whereas charge sheet has been issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. MHA has acted without jurisdiction in the case of this officer.
3. Issue short notice to the respondents to file reply within two weeks.
4. List it on 12.07.2007. Meanwhile, proceedings are stayed till further orders.
2. Even though, the basic prayer in the Application is to quash the chargesheet dated 2.2.2006, Shri V.S.R. Krishna, learned Counsel representing the applicant, however, confines the relief in the present Application at this stage, to a direction to the respondents to supply to the applicant copies of all original documents sought to be relied by the department in its endeavour to bring home the charges against him. He also prays that this Tribunal may direct the respondents to permit the applicant inspection of original records, and further that, after copies of the documents are made available and inspection is allowed, applicant be permitted to file a proper reply to the chargesheet which, could not be filed due to non-availability of the relevant documents, and such reply filed by him be taken into consideration and appropriate order passed by the concerned authority whether to proceed with the enquiry or not. One of the grounds in challenging the chargesheet is also non-supply of the documents listed in para 4.xxi of the Application, which reads as follows:
xxi) That it is submitted that the respondents have started with the illegal inquiry and in view of the charges being patently delayed the applicant is not being supplied with the original documents as are cited in the charge sheet and this fact verily makes the applicant believe that the charge sheet has been prepared not on the basis of the original documents on record but on the basis of extraneous material only with a view to harm the applicant. In view of the delay caused the applicant is heavily prejudiced in that he is not able to procure documents in his support nor the documents are being given to him with the result that the conduct of the inquiry is becoming a total farce and illegal. It is being aggrieved by the illegal charge sheet issued that the applicant is moving this Hon'ble Court seeking justice from illegal harassment.
In the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the corresponding para of the Application reproduced above has been replied as follows:
In reply to para (xxi), it is stated that the inquiry against Shri S.P. Singh was started only after careful and due consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and after following the due procedure. The available records of the case were also taken into account and consultation with Central Vigilance Commission was also taken.
3. From perusal of the pleadings as extracted above, insofar as supplying to the applicant the relevant documents is concerned, it does appear that the applicant has not been made available all the documents. Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned Counsel representing the respondents in wake of the facts as mentioned above and the limited prayer of the counsel for the applicant at this stage rightly does not object to the same.
4. In view of the facts as mentioned above and the stand taken by learned Counsel representing the parties, we direct the respondents to make the applicant available copies of all the original documents relied upon by the department in its endeavour to prove the charges against him. We also direct the respondents to permit inspection of the original records by the applicant. After the respondents may do the needful as mentioned above, the applicant would be entitled to file appropriate reply to the chargesheet, and the respondents would then deal with the objections raised by the applicant, and in particular those mentioned by this Tribunal in its order dated 29.6.2007, reproduced above, and pass a speaking order. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and in particular that the applicant has been chargesheeted on 2.2.2006 with regard to incidents of 1997, we make the exercise ordained above time bound. The respondents will give copies of all the relevant documents to the applicant and permit him inspection of original records within a period of one month from today. The applicant may file representation one month thereafter and the appropriate order as mentioned above shall be passed within a month from receipt of the representation. It goes without saying that if the department may still like to proceed with the enquiry against the applicant, it would be open to the applicant to file a fresh Original Application on the same cause of action. Till such time, however, the order as mentioned above is passed, the departmental proceedings which were stayed by order dated 29.6.2007, shall remain stayed.
5. With the observations made above, this Application is disposed of, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.