Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Dr Anju Pandey vs M/O Earth Science on 19 October, 2023
i OA203/2019 Central Administrative Tribunal, Munrbai Bench, Mumbai. OA 2038/2019 Dated this Thursday the 16" day of Gefober, 2023. Coram: Dr Bhagwan Sahai, Member (Administrative) Mes.Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (Judicial. DrAnn Pandey, Scientist D (Linder Removal), National Centre for Antarctic & Ocean Research, Croa -403 804, Residing at. H-V. ne N a -AOR Campus, Goa, Vasco Da-Gama, G 403 8Q5, » Applicant. (In Person ). Versus iw Union of India, through } the Hon'ble Minister, \ | Ministry of Earth Science and Environment, } Deleted Forests and Climatic Change, $ Anusanchan Bhawan, New Delhi~ 110 003.) os The Chairman, Governing Council National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research and also the Secretary, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Prithvi Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003, 3. The Director, National Centre for Antarctic & OQeean Research, Headland Sada, Vasco Ds-Gama, Goa -- 403 804. . Respondents. ( By Advocate Shri 8. Ravi). Order reserved on : 03.07.2023 TOTES Order pronounced on: TOTO 2083. ba QA S032019 ORDER
Per: Dr Bhagwan Sahai, Member (Administy rative).
DrAnju Pandey has filed this O.A. on 11.03.2019 seeking examination of her case record and setting aside impugned order of her removal from service dated 04.01.2019 passed by Chairman, Governing Council, NCPOR, Goa and order of Appellate Author rity, Government of India, dated 21.02.2019 with all consequential benefits: and to direct the respondents to reinstate her on the post of Scientist 'D! from 04.01.2019 with consequential benefits such as backwages, confirmation, seniority and promotions on par with her juniors, along with providing cost of this OA,
2. Facts as narrated by the applicant 2 2(a), The applicant has obiained a Doctorate degree in Earth Setiences from University of Delhi and has Tceived Asiatic Society Award, DAAD award 'for doctoral -- from Gcverninent of Germany and NERC Post-Doctoral Fellowship fom United Ringdor and several other rewards. She claims to be well recognized in her field of Science and Research and has published several international publications. She was selected vies as Scientist in National Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur, and as Lecturer at Indian School of Mines, Dhanhad. However, to Slay close to her allin £& mother, she had to give up those positions.
CLE 3 OA SOI2019 20D). She was selected as Scientist 'D' on contract basis in 2004 by National Centre for Aniarctica and Ocean Research (NCAOR), Goa under CLCS Project. She was there dll A006, Afier marriage with De Dhananial Pandey, Scientist at NCAOR, Goa iy 2005 and while hokting position of post-doctoral fellow in National Ovoeanography Centre (NOC), Southampton, UK, she applied for a position in NCAOR, Goa. She was denied opportunity to apply there and, therefore, she applied at Indian Institute of Meteorology (ITM), Pune and was selected and worked there.
2{c). Then she applied for contract position of Project Seientist 'D' in Hydrothermal Project of NCAOR, Goa on 17.01.2012. But she was posted and joined on 16.05.2012 at Ministry of Banh Sciences, New Delhi She claims that 1} was because the then DNrector of NCAOR, Goa felt that both husband and wifs should not work together in one Scientist "D'. While she was working as project Scientist "'D' at New Delhi, ber husband complained against Shri A.K. Singh, then Administrative Officer (AO) at NCAOR, Goa on 17.08.2012 about pee, gecupation of quarter 'Type-IV allotted to her husband in 2005. For renovation of Type-IV quarter, the applicant's husband and his fimily were asked to temporarily move out of it to guest house and afer renovation, Shri Singh moved into that renovated Type-IV quarter 4 OA.203/2019 without any office order, She further claims that following the complaint, Shri Singh, A.O. Shr Rasik Ravindra, then Deputy Directoy and thereatter Director Dr.8 S. Rajan victimised her and her husband to not allow her and her hushand to wore together at NCAOR. Goa. 2id). Then Shri Singh proposed inquiry into the applicant's experience certificates kept in her personal file when she worked at NCAOR, Gea on contract position from 200400068. Thereafter an OM was issued on 22.08.2012 to the applicant alleging that she had not submitted proper experience « ertificates for the post of Project Scientist 'D' at NCAOR and asked her to submie Proper experience certificates. The A.O. and Directar, NCAOR wrote to Indian Scho! of Mines, Dhanbad about raising of penal rent against her as disclosed in ISM's letter dated 06.09.2012. Shri Singh wrote repeatedly to the applicant's reporting officer, Dr MP Ww fandikar, Scientist 'G', Ministey of Earth Me Sciences, New Delhi "stating that her experience certifi ioates testifi ified experience only for NCAOR, Goa and OTM, Pune and remaining experience claimed by her were not substantiated, 2(€)}, Then the applicant submited to Secretary, Ministry of Earth Sciences her experience certificates as well as originals along with a specific o | complaint of harassment against Shri Singh. Thereafler she was interviewed on 26.10.2012 for penhanent post of Scientist 'D' for which she had applied on 16.05.2012. Before that Shri Singh again issued 2 OMs on 09.12.2012 asking her for experience certificates and to clear dues of ISM, Dhanbad. She appeared for the interview for the post of Scientist 'D', when Shri Singh went to Delhi to verily her documents, At that time Shri Singh mentioned that she had to pay the dues to ISM, Dhanbad. On 15.11.2012, the applicant was issued offer of appointment as Scientist "D' at NCAOR, Goa and at that time Shri Singh did not raise any issus regarding her experience or papers received fom ISM. Thus her offer of appointment was issued after due satisfaction about her experience certificates. She joined on the post of Scientist 'D' at NCAOR, Goa on 27.11.2012.
aif. Shri Singh again issued OM on 18.01.2013 to her to clear the alleged dues of ISM, Dhanbad within 3 months, although no dues were to be paid by her to ISM, Dhanbad, and that institute has not raised any demand. Her job at ISM, Dhanbad was abruptly terminated in recover dues after 1] years, Shri Singh wanted the auplicant to pay around Rs.i7 lakhs to ISM, Dhanbad. Therefore, she approached Jharkhand High Court to seek orders thet nothing was payable to ISM, Dhanbad, 2g} Thereafter the applicant submitted various complaints to Respondent No.2 against Shri Singh and then Director of NCAOR about gender discrimination and harassment of women Scientists at workplace, 6 OA 2032019 Because of this, Shri Singh again recorded a noting in the Ale dated 08.03.2013 that it is not difficult to establish that she had provided suspicious! false aise experience certificates to get selected for the post of Scientist 'Fo as well as to sect re employment In NCAOR, Goa which attracts disciplinary action. The then Director, Shri S. Rajan also ra nal co Sa Pex) recorded remarks in the fle that prima-faeie there appears seri discrepancy in work experience of the applicant and postponed constitution of fact finding committee, Thereafter surveillance was kep on her quarter and in a me eeting in the chamber of Director on 25.04.2013, Shri Singh verbally assaulted her She reported these instances to Respondents No.2 and 3.
2h). Then on 16.08.2013 the applicant was served with arder of termination of her service with immediate effect. This was challenged before this Tribunal in O.A.S00/2013 which was allowed by arder dated 17.12.2013 setting aside the order of 16. 08. 2013 'and: directing the respondents to allow her to resume her duties. However, it was kept apen to the respondents to initiate proper disciplinary inquiry, if they so wished, after issuing a char aroe-sheet and following procedure as well as principles of natural justice, 23}. Then a Fact Finding Committes was constituted on O1.05.2014, it visited Goa for 2 days and submitted a report which was filed before the Tribunal, That report had been submitted to Respondent Z QAL03/2019 No.2, who recorded remarks that respondent no.3 is executive disciplinary head of NCAOR and should take appropriate action. Thus the same person was made to take action on the report of the fact finding committee against whom there were complaints. As per letter of * O5.11.2013 received in response to the applicant's inquiry under RTT Act, the applicant had been terminated to avoid i inquiry against Shri Singh and then Director Dr's. Rajan. Before the Fact Finding Committee, she was Aol Bravid ided any opportunity to defend herself but her batch-mate colleague Dr Sharma was provided with an apportunity and he was allowed to rejoin the job whereas the applicant was terminated. This resulted in her humiliation and continuation on probation for almost 8 years. Then the respondents ordered disciplinary inquiry against the applicant vide OM dated 31.01.2014 which was devotd. of st of witnesses, he OM contained 'char PES which were sdaneal to thos ae dey elled 'aust gainst her in 2014 by respondent: no.3. Therefore, she filed another O.A.109/2014 before this Tribunal which was decided on 06.03.2014. While the OM of disciplinary inquiry was issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Earth Sciences and asked the disciplinary authority for taking decision on Fact Finding Committee report, the Director was made the disciplinary head. At that stage the Tribunal was not inclined to interfere and passed order on 06.03.2014 directing the respondents to follow the earlier order of the Tebunal dated & OA 2OR/2019 17.12.2013 and complete the inquiry.
2{j). Before initiating the Inquiry against the applicant by memo dated 31.01.2014, the respondent no.2 had waited for 6 years during which period the then Director DS. Rajan had retired and Shri AK. Singh resigned and both of them [ef NCAOR, Goa. She claims that this Wait of 6 years was only to allow the accused to sexually harass the applicant and to allow ther to reties or resign with all service benefits, Thereafter Respondent No.3 ic. NCAOR, Goa conducted an ex-parte inquiry and concluded that all the accused were found non-euilty of sexual harassment. The applicant filed appeal against that order of Respondent No.3, but Respondent No.3 did not respond to it The disciplinary inquiry was in pursuance to charge-sheet issued in January, 2014 and was concluded in January, 2019. The Board of Inquiry had been reconstituted 3 times. The j inquiry authority was biased against the applicant and conducted the inguiry in violation of law of natural justice and CCS Rules. The applicant submitted re eply and written submissions on 08.01 2018, mentioning reasons as to why she was unable to repose trast in the inquiry authority and she provided legal reasons as to why disciplinary inquiry should not be initated against her. However, Smt.Kamaljit Ray, the Inquiring Authority handed over the inguiry report to the applicant on 19.11.2018. Then by order of 04.01 2019, she was removed from service. She challenged this in O.A.23/2019 for 9 OA203/2019 interim relief, however, the Tribunal granted liberty to her to file appeal to Respondent No.l. She filed the appeal to Respondent No.l on LLIQ2019 but it was turned down by order dated 21.02.2019, Therefore, this O.A. has been filed.
3. Contentions of the applicant :
in the O.A,, rejoinder and during her oral and written submissions before the Tribunal, these are her contentions. Ais). The impugned order of her removal from service has been passed in gross violation of permissible purported evidence in the uiquiry as per Supreme Court decisions in Nirmala Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat, Reup Singh Negi Vs. Panjab National Bank and several Judgments of this Tribunal and principles of natural justice under Article SU @) of the Constitution of faite: The respondent No.2 has used the
2.
report of the Baca miquiry, and report of the Bact Finding Committee as pur ported evidence to "sustain char arges against her, 'The Fact Finding Commitige inquiry was conducted behind back of the applicant and documents enclosed with the report were collected behind ser back. It is settled law that preliminary inquiry report cannot be used as an evidence in regular inquiry. The xerox copies of Fact Finding Committee report and statements mede during OLA SOO/2013 by respondent no.) are not authenticated by witnesses. Respondent No.2 did not produce originals of those alleged xerox copies during the 10 OA.203/2019 inquiry;
3(h). the respondents cited several alleged applications submitted by her from 2004 onwards, but none of them resulted im any employment. These applications and their enclosures are net authenticated by any staff or by their writers during the inguiry, The applicant did not get opportunity to crass examine the alleged writers or stalf making the allegations in xerox papers produced by the Presenting Officer (PO} during the inquiry. The Inquiry Authority omitted the defence led by her during inquiry on 09.08.2018 from the report and excluded the defence exhibits fein the report. To conclude against the applicant in the report, the Inquiry Authority falsely wrote that the applicant did not lead any defence, This is in eninadlction to her own daily order sheet of 09.08.2018 in which it was recorded that the applicant had led defence from 10 am to 12 am. The applicant was on medical leave and had pleaded before Respondent No, 1 to grant her tie till her medical fitness Le. upte 15.01.2015 to reply to the inguiry report.
However, the respondent no. removed her | from service by order dated O4.0 1.2019:
3{e). the xerox papers used by respondent no.2 and the PO during the inquiry are almost 20 years old and no employment has been secured by the applicant based on those applications. The current position of the applicant was not based on those alleged applications but i OA 2032/2079 it was based on application dated 15.05.2012. Thus by framing of charges on alleged two decades old applications, apportunity to defend the charges was denied. The order of termination was challenged by the applicant in OLA.5G0/2013 before the Tribunal and in its order dated (712.2013, the Tribunal concluded that suspicions and surmises cannot be used as evidence, In its order the Tribunal had also recorded about admission of respondent no.2 that the applicant had essential - qualification and experience for the post held by her:
Sid}, she has relied on Supreme Court decisions in Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2065 SC 2668; Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., 2008 SC Page 10 and decisions of ALT, Principal Bench, in Paramfit Singh Saini Vs. Union of India (2015), Page 15; Rita Chaudhary Vs. Union of India 2014), Page : 13; and Shri C.M.P. Sinha Vs. Union of India (2014) Page &;
3) the penalty of removal from "service imposed o on he applicant is absolutely unwarranted. The respondents were in hurry to erminate her services on 16.08.2013, but they were forced by the Tnibunal to follow principles of natural justice and they took 6 long years before concluding the Inquiry and thereafter deciding the case of the applicant;
f\ Rieke she has also attempted to fustify how the charges against her were not proved. The admitted exhibits submitted frora prosecution 2 OA SOA/2O19 were all photocopies, unsigned and without dates, Observa tions of the applicant are not inserted in the daily order sheet. The j inquiry authority admitted only 9 defence documents out of S3 defence documents a requested by the applicant. The applicant was denie submission of mandatory defence statement by not providing her opportunity. The inquiry authority allowed administrative-cum-legal experts to participate in the disciplinary proceedings to advocate the case. A legal administrative staff of respondent no.2, Mr. Rajan met the inquiry authority along with PO;
Je}. the applicant was intimidated through several unknown persons during the proceedings. The inquiry Officer' report was handed aver to the applicant in an envelope on 19.11.2018 by respondent no? himself. Since she was on aporeved medical leave due to fracture in leg, the Disciplinary Authority did net allow her time uU ber fitness to submit reply to the report of the faguiry { J Eficer, Her appeal has been rejected by Respondent No.1 on false grounds claiming that her defence had not denied authenticity and submission of application dated 3(h). out of the 7 articles of charges levelled against the applicant in the charge-sheet dated 31.01. 2014, only 5 were proved in the inguiry. The respondents repeatedly highlohted the part of charge-3 Le, suppression of material information about her termination from ISM, LEE i3 GA ZORZO19 Dhanbad. The charge against the applicant about suppression of her termination by ISM, Dhanbad is baseless. The respondents were aware about the fact that the applicant was terminated by ISM, Dhanbad before she joined at NCAOR, Goa on 27.11.2012. Before joining of the applicant at NC AOR on 27.11.2012, from submission of her attestation form on 22.12.2012, the respondents were aware about her termination by ISM, Dhanbad but they made repeated correspondence with ISM regarding pending penal rent. When the respondents were convinced about false claim of ISM, Dhanbad about pending penal rent, they 7 merviewed her and selected her with offer of appointment dated a. the reason given by her in the attestation form for leaving her earlier service at ISM, Dhanbad was couplayment in the next erade and it was factually correct. The applicant had -- einployed at ISM, Dhanbad on probe ation for 2 years and after completion of nrobation, ISM decided nai to confirm her In service and her service was terminated;
aq). report of Fact Finding Conunittee was the reason for termination of the applicant but it was set aside by the Tribunal. The FRC was merely an eye-wash and it was 'constitut ted merely to throw the applicant out of service to avoid redress of her complaints of sexual harassment. She had to approach the Cabinet Secretary on this subject.
id OAZO3 2019 The respondents misused their office to constitute and reconstitute hoard of inquiry which never met. The respondents have not explained in reply as to why the Inquiry Officer Shri NLP. Kurian was removed and why the inquiry was delayed afier Mr Pandian refised to act as Inquiry Officer. The constitution and reconstitution of board of inquiry several times was done by the respondents to delay the disciplinary inquiry. The applicant requested new Presiding Officer Dr.Parvinder Maini to provide her names of accused, witnesses to be examined and documents required by the applicant. However, she refused to reply and only asked MrPatel, Deputy Secretary to report about ICC » In the FIR registered with CBI regarding recruitment seam from the year 2002, Shri AK. Singh deliberately highlighted the case of the applicant. The applicant was never made an accused in the FIR but her husband was included as an accused in the FIR which was set aside by Goa Bench of Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition:
No.12/2014 on 29.10.2015. An SLP was filed by the CBI in the Supreme Court, but the Apex Court in its order dated 25.08.2017 has upheld the order of the High Court: The CBT has not given correct information in its letter dated 15.02.2017 and all the docur nents concerning the applicant's husband and her have been returned by the CBL This was also brought to the notice of Respondent No.4 by her hushand. The respondents also changed the POs many times.
Me 13 OA.203/2019 Therefore, on the same charges termination of her service is not justified. The applicant also filed W.P.No.832/2016 before Jharkhand Nigh Court against ISM, Dhanbad challenging the demand for penal rent. The FFC conducted the inquiny behind back of the applicant and # concluded that all the charges levelled by Shri Singh were proved.
Although DrParmanand Sharma was accused of discrepancies i in his application for current position of permanent Scientist 'D' and he also toes nol possess experience of 7 years which was reduced to 5 years while recruiting him. The FRC also did net allow her to appear be fire it aud submit oral defence, thus she was not provided opportunity to defend her ease;
Stk}. the contentions of the respondents that warning applied in case of the applicant is completely invalid and this contention is incorrect. The contention of the respondents about harassment charge that it was u tactic by the deinplainiant 6 distract 'daa from the. issue related discrepancy in her experience ceriificates. If the sexual harassment and gender discrimination complaints were untrue, were only 4 tactic used by the applicant, then the respondents should have followed the law and within 90 days they should have addressed the complaints as per rules.
In view of the above facts and illegal action taken by the 16 OA203/2019 Contentions of the respondents :
* In reply, surrejoinder and during arguments of their counsel, these are the contentions of the respondents : aD. the applicant has made various allegations of gender bias, discrimination and sexual harassment apetvigh: many officials of the respondents, but the crux of the matter pertains to submission of false and wrong information, non-disclosure of her termination by ISM, Dhanbad and suppression of those facts by her in the attestation forms Signed twice by herself on 17.11.2004 while joining NCAOR as Scientist "D' on contractual basis and on 22.11.2012 while joining the service at NCAOR, Goa as Scientist 'D'. In the attestation forms the fact of termination of her earlier service was not mentioned by the applicant; 3m). the case of harassment was filed by the applicant against officers of NCAOR, Goa with perception that it would have hampered her employme At status, but in fact it is evident that serious charges-of | submission of false information and non-disclosure of earlier termination by ISM, Dhanbad and on the experience certificates submitted by her were raised by NCAOR as early as 22.08.2012 asking the complainant (present applicant) to submit all certificates relating to her previous employment and experience. Subsequently all the officers dealing with the matter were acerued by the applicant for harassment in her complaint in April, 2013. This clearly shows that the harassment i? BA ZOS/2019 charge was only a tactic used by the applicant to divert attention fom the issue relating to discrepancies noted in her experience certificates and reason for leaving previous employment.
The Ministry of Earth Sciences and National Centre for Antarcic & Ocean Research (NCAOR) have taken all possible steps to redress the complaints raised by the applicant, however, she repeated] y made the same complaints to different authorities by twisting facts in each and every representation with ulterior motive; Sin}. in the attestation forms submitted by the applicant on two occasions that is while applying for the post of Scientist "D' on contract basis at NCAOR on 17.11.2004 and for permanent post of Scientist (D' at NCAOR dated 22.11.2012, she wilfully and knowingly furnished false Information and suppressed factual information about termination of her service by ISM, Dhanbad and Wereby she wil ally violated the © Government Bros | ediite not only once but rep eatedly on many aceasions, After her permanent appointment, while serutinising the record of the applicant available with the respondents, discrepancies were noticed in reapect of expetiotice vertiicates and reasons for leaving earlier employment at ISM, Dhanbad Amished by he. Therefore, on O1.05.2013 a Fact Finding Committee was constituted to verily the documents related to her experience. The FPC in its report dated 10.05.2013 found discrepancy in experience claimed by the applicant 8 JA203/2079 Since the documenis annexed / relied upon with the report of the FEC are voluminous of around 170 pages, tie respondents sought permission fo refer to these documents when produced before the Tribunal. The RFC found 7 frets of suppression of information or submission of wrong information by the applicant and, therefore her service from NCAOR was terminated. The attestation form for Government reeruitment caries the following WArHngs :
"C1 The furnishing of false information or Suppression of any in the Attestation form would be a disqualification, and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Govt.
33 If the fact that fulse information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any Sactual information in the attestation form comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his / her services would he Hable to be terminated."
3(0). by order dated 19.01.2001 issued by the Registrar & Secretary, Executive Board, Indian School OF Mines, Dhanbad, service of present applicant Le. Dr Anh Mazumdar (Iiwary), Lecturer, Department of Applied Geology, was terminated. This faet was Suppressed by the applicant in the attestation form signed by her on 17.11.2004 and 22.11.2012. Yh the atiestation form she did not mention termination of her earller semdee as per the above order. In the attestation form filled on 17.11.2004 by the applicant, she was recruited as Scientist 'D' on project basis at NC AOR, Goa and in the column of LE ig OS 203/2019 reason for leaving previous service Le. Lecturer in Applied Geology at ISM, Dhanbad, she mentioned that she left the job for 'none' whereas the fact is that her service had been terminated. She had also mentioned that her job was temporary while the fact is that the ISM, Dhanbad had teeruited her as Lecturer against the permanent post. From these facts i is obvious that the applicant had suppressed the factual material information and also provided false information about her earlier engagement and termination by ISM, Dhanbad:
3p). while applying for the permanent post of Scientist "Dy at NCAOR, Goa, the applicant submtitied her 2" attestation form on StL 2012 tno owhich sha falsely mentioned that fram QG.10. 1998 to 31 12.2000 she was Lecturer at ISM, Dhanbad, but she mentioned in form under the reasons column for leaving previous service as specific information about leaving previous temporary service under Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 or any other similar corresponding rules and were any disciplinary proceedings framed against the applicant. Under Colum 12, she submitted the reply as 'No', The reason mentioned by the applicant in the attestation torm for leaving previous service was false, as she had been terminated from the permanent post of Lecturer by ISM, Dhanbad dated 19.01.2001. Ja the first attestation form submitted on 171.2004, she mentioned the reply 20 OA BUS 2019 as "No", whereas in the second attestation form submitted on 24.11.2012 she mentioned as "No Applicable:
ti this subject, the DoPT OM dated 29. 06.2016 provides as...
lnder = "4. In the provisional appointment letter, it will be clearly mentioned that in case character antecedents of the candidate is found not verified or any false information is given by the candidate in kis/ her self-declaration, the provisional appointinent istter will be cancelled forthwith and other criminal / isgal action will also be taken, as a consequence, ve Since the candidate will submit the self declaration, in case any of the information js found j Incorrect, or in case, the verification confirms that fueis ¢ given by the candidate were not correct, then the appointing authority shall cancel the appointment letter forthwith. The candidate shall be rendered unfit for any Government employment and appointing authority shall undertake ather criminal/civil/legal (action as per provisions of Indian Penal Code UPC) ete. as deemed He"
3(q). sim: the: basis of , PC report, a show cause letter dated...
05.07.2013 was issued to the applicant providing her opportunity for submitting documentary evidence as well as clarifications on inconsistencies/discr repancies noticed in her experience ¢ ertificates. But in her reply dated sii she alleged fabrication by the FFC and did not provide any documentary evidence or clarification as was sought by the show cause letter dated 05.07.2013. fn view af-the improper and unreasonable reply submitted by the applicant, her service was Officer, NCAOR, Goa, Dr 8, Rajan, then Director, NCAOR and Drtohn | ai OA2O3 2019 femmuinated vide NCAOR order dated 16.08.2013 with immediate effect. That was challenged by the applicant in O.A.500/013 in which the Tribunal a U12.2013 noted that the termination order of the applicant was founded on stigma and misconduct and it was set aside directing the respondents to allow the applicant to resume her duties but it was le& apen to the respondents to initiate proper disciplinary inquiry afer issuing charge-sheet and follow! ing the procedure as well as principles of natural justice, Therefore, the applicant was reinstated as Scientist "DY on 24.12.2013, However, during the year 2013-14 the applicant made Pumersus representations. to different authorities including Cabinet Secretary, Government of India dated 20.10.2014 to O7.10.2013 alleging ton-redressal of her complaints of gender discrimination and sexual harassment by DrShailesh Nayak, then Secretary, Ministry of Earth Sciences. Those allesations w examined by NCAOR. She had also % Kurlan, then Scientist 'DY, NCAOR, Goa. Ministry of Earth Selences in its letter dated 18.03.2013 had forwarded her complaints to examine those allegations, NCAOR in its letter dated 03 3.2013 had submitted detailed explanation of Shri AK. Singh, Dr. S. Rajan and DrJohn Kurlan;
Sir). then on 31.01.2014, a memorandum of char ze-sheel WAS 33 OA.203/2019 issued fo the applicant by DrShailesh Nayak, Chairman, Governing Council, NCAOR. The applicant replied to the charge-sheet on 03.05.2014 and requested for additional time of VO Weeks to submit Tesponse and she replied to the charge-sheet on 15.03.2014. Thereafter Board of Inquiry was appointed vide onder dated 14.01.2015 consisting of3 persons as Members Le. Shy KCP. Pandian. former 7 S&FA, Ministry of SE TYDBT/MoES as Lead Me ember, DrH.C. Jayal, 1S, {Retd.) Dept of Telecom, and Dr Parvinder Maini, Scientist "E', MoES, New Delhi and Shri K.P Pandian was appointed as Presenting Officer However, reconstituted Board of Inquiry could not-mect as some members could Rot make themselves available for different reasons, In the meanwhile the applicant lodged a complaint vide letter dated 29.00.2014 to the National Commission for Wom en (NCW), New Delhi. The NCW sent a ister on 31.10.2014 * containing ¢ silegations of s extal harassment by Sh wi AK. 'Singh, the then AQ, Dr, Raj sjan, th then Director and Dr John Kurlan, then Scientist:
Sis). im pursuance to OM dated 12.11.2014 by Ministry of Women & Child Development, the NCAOR issued an OM dated 26.02.2015 to constitute an internal complaints committee nominating herself as the Presiding Officer. Since the complaint was from the applicant herself she was replaced with the extemal member from NIO, DrMaria Judith Gonsalves and the meeting was scheduled on 33 OA BOIL O5,08.2018, On that date the applicant did not present herself and sent an email that she had received the mail on that date only and she would not be able to attend and sought another date. The Committee met at NCSOR on 05.08.2015 and submitted its report stating that the Committee reviewed the file, it was unable te arrive ata decision as the complainant did not appear before 'the Committee. Then the second meeting was fixed on 12.08.0015 but again the applicant remained absent claiming that she was not feelin g well and would avail medical leave from 13.08.2018. Therefore, the meeting was scheduled on 23.09.2015, but because of complaint by the applicant on 15.00.2015 of allegation of bias. the Presiding OfScer of the Committee Dr Maria Judith sought exemption fom further hearing. Then the Ministry (rParvinder Maini, Scientist 'F' as Presid ing Officer and fhe Commnlties net on 21.03.2016 and 22.03 2016, bat ag ain ¢ he 'inlicant did not attend meetings of the Committee and also did not info ae Fa Sood foot pei rh mech bats Communities about any reason of her absence, In spite of the above facts the Ministry of Earth Sciences and NCAOR with unbiased intentions constituted the internal complaints committee to redress the complaints of the applicant and the Committee submitted jts report addressing all the complaints made by the applicant and found prima-facie no substance in allegations of the applicant, The minutes were © approved by 24 OA SOR2019 the Chairman, Governing Council, NCAOR and made available to the applicant, National Commission for Women and others;
3(t}. a CBI case was filed through FIR dated 05.08.2014 against _ the applicant and her husband. In its letter dated 10 G.01.2014, the CBI Bambolim, Goa informed that it wes reliably learnt that Dr Anju Pandey had secured job of Scientist at NCAOR on false te epresentation and suppression of facts. In this connection, NCAOR has conducted inquiry and had dismissed her. However, she got reinstated as per of CAT order, The CBI sought copies of reply of the FFC as well as order of CAT. The CBI was replied by DrS. Rajan, NCAOR informing that as per CAT order dated 17.12.2013 in O.A.S00/ 2013, action had been initiated for -- proper disciplinary Inguiry against the applicant under relevant Government of India rules. Then on 24. 12.2014, Dr. Rajan, NCAQR replied to CBI letter on 19.09.2014 in} forming that ull date information about financial is ssue pertaining t ta. ISM, Dhanbad had not been raceived and all the files pertaining to the present applicant had been handed over to CBI during its seizure memo dated 19.09.2014. Then on 31 OL2015, CBI informed that an SLP had been filed on 23.12.2016 in the Supreme Court in matter relating to quashing of FIR against Dr. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey by High Court of Bombay at Goa in Cr. WP No.112/2014 dated 29.10.2015 and on the basis of Supreme Court decision both the c Cases related to Dr. Pandey and his wifsowere being reinvestigated by CBI-
Ye
--
CK + OABORLOL9 5a). in view of another representation of the applicant dated 24.01.2017, Drk Kamaljit Ray, Scientist "FL India Metsorslogical Department, New Delhi and Shri K.P Pandian, Joint Secretary (Retd., MOES were appointed on 16.08.2017 as Inquiring Authority and Presenting Officer under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1968. Then in x appeal dated 18.08.2017 submitted to Disciplinary Authority, the present applicant again complained of bias against Dir Ramat Rav, the Inquiring Authority and. Shr ELB. Pandian, Presenting Officer. Therefore, in terms of DoPT OM dated 09.11.1972 , proceadings of the inquiry were stayed. In spite of unsubstantiated and aon-maintainable allegations of bias, a decision was taken in the interest of fairness and naftval justice to replace the Presenting Officer and one Ms.Ranju.
Madan was appointed as Presenting Officer vide order dated 11.12.2017 and on completion of departmental proceedings, the Inquiry Officer submitted its report on 09.10 2018 concluding that out of 7 Articles of Charge against the applicant Articles 12.3.6 & 7 were proved but Articles 4 and 5 were no proved.
A copy of inquiry report was 'Supplied to the applicant for representation to it within 15 days. A capy of inquiry report was received by the applicant on 19! LL2018, but ai 28.11.2018, she requested the Disciplinary Authority for extension of time to submit her representation claiming her medical condition Le. fracture in her foot on 26 QA LOSN2O19 25.11.2018. For submission of her reply in terms of Rule 15(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, time was exiended three times by the Disciplinary Authority and final extension was G11 01.01.2019 thereby providing time of 43 days to her from the date of re ecoipt of copy of the j inquiry report.
But the applicant again violated time period allowed to her and no reply vas submitted by her to the inquiry report. Therefore, the piseipiiess Authority concluded that the charges proved against the present applicant constituted grave misconduct which impings on her integrity and put an indelible stigma on her conduct, and in his order dated 04.01.2019 mentioned that the officer of CO's rank should disc lose correct facts of fraudulent acts which support the applicant with conscious and deliberate state of mind. The applicant represenied on 11.01.2019 against the imposition of penalty of removal from service under CCS (CCA) Rules, | 965:
Xv). the applicant filed an appeal ay against t the | "order ee"
punishment claiming that the penalty had been imposed on the basis of illegal and biased report submitted by the Inquiry Officer and no witnesses had been examined, no cross exa uinination had been done and the Inquiry Officer acted an vague charges and all the exhiblis were photocopies which had no authentication and principles of natural justice were violated. The claim of the applicant that she had to give up her earlier permanent position due to ill-health of her mother is factually bed vd a se $2 ses Red Stead oS e Le ax] incorrect becatise her service ag Lecturer was terminated by the ISM, Dhanbad. The allegations of the applicant that she was constantly denied the opportunity io apply with NCAOR is melther correct nor substantiated:
Soy}. in the offer of appointment to the applicant dated 03.05.2012 for the post of Project Sofentist DY, it was clearly mentioned the place of her pasting as Ministry of Earth Sciences, New Delhi and aS her reporting officer DrM. B Wakdikar, Scientist 'F, Minis stry of Earth Sulences:
3{8), about allegations of the applicant that her husband was allotted Type-IV by order dated 12,10,2012 in Heu of Type-¥ quarter has not been mentioned in the allotment letter. NCAOR had taken up renovation work of Type-V quarters at campus in a - phased manner, Therefore, allotment of Type-V was made in October, 2012 after PS ovat ron XR Ate). the applicant has made false statement that no dues were pending to be paid by her to the ISM, Dhanbad and the Institute had not raised any demand to her. This is factually wrong and misleading. In the ISM letter dated 24.16.2013 it was informed that inspite of se sveral Written reminders the applicant neither vacated the quarter nor responded to their letters and the latest position of rent and penal rent outstanding against her upto 30.09.2013 was of Rs, 15,2 25,062.46. The 28 ; OA203 20189 claim of the applicant that her appointment at ISM, Dhanbad was temporary is also false because ISM had recruited her as Lecturer in Applied Geology on 06.16.1998 on a permanent post. The applicant also falsely alleged about fabrication of fies by the FFC;
Hz}. the internal complaints commiites considered all the js SSUuaS and complaints made by the applicant which were part of the grievance petition addressed to the National Women's C 'ommussion and Internal Complaints Committee concluded that Prima-facie there was no substance in her allegations. The disciplinary inguiry had no direct or indirect connection with the retirement or re-employment of any persons concered with the sesual harassment case. The allegations of the applicant in para 4.25 to 4.28 of the C.A. are alse false because all original case records were available with the CRY which was not ready fo part with those documents due to an ongoing Investigation. By letter 3 dated 19.06.2019 the CBI had informed about present status of the o: CAR ra against DrAnju Pandey that investigation was still under progress in respect of foreign investigation. The inguiry committee gave ample opportunity to the applicant to inspect the documents but due to refusal of the applicant herself, atiested seanned copies of the originals were given to her. The Disciplinary Authority extended time three dmes to unable the applicant to submit her reply to the inquiry cepart but she never submitted any reply, ao OABNS2019 The applicant was non-cooperative daring the inquiry proceedings and did not take any interest in completion of the inquiry as is evident from daily order sheets dated 26.08.2018, 16.07 2018, In view of the above submissions, the O.A. has no substance and it should be dismissed.
4. Analysis and conclusions :
We heve heard applicant in person and counsel for the respondents. We have also considered documents enclosed with the O.A., and submissions of parties, rival contentions of the parties raised during the hearing, written submissions and the caselaws relied upon by them. On considering all relevant facts and submissions of both the sides, our conclusions in this case are as follows:
dia}. The applicant was first terminated from service by order of the respondents dated 16.08.2013, But the order « of f termination under challenge in the present O.A, is the subsequent and second order of her termination issued on 04.01.2019 based on proved charges in the disciplinary inquiry conducted against the applicant relating to SUBMISSION of false, wrong and misleading information by her about her experience certificates and employment in other institutions. The main aspects alleged in the charge-sheet dated 31401.2014 issued to the applicant related to submission of false and wrong information by her 3G OA.203/2019 about her prior employment and experience with other institutions and suppression of material facts about her termination by the ISM, Dhanbad | and pending dues of that Institute. After issuing the charge-sheet to her, DrKamaljit Ray, Scientist F') UMD, New Delhi was appointed as inquiring authority by order dated 16.08.2017 and Ms.Ranju Madan, Scientist was appointed as Presenting Officer vide order dated 122017. The applicant participated in the Inquiry proceedings. The Inquiring Authority in its report on 09,16,2618 concluded that out of 7 charges, 5 of them Le. Article LILIN,VI & VIL were proved but Articles of Charge No.TV & V were not proved. The inquiry report is a well reasoned report, covering how the proceedings, took place and refuting each of the allegations mads by the applicant. A copy of the inquiry report was handed over to the applicant on 09.11.2018, allowing her iS days time to submit representation, On her re: uest, this time was further 3 p extended but the applicant did not submit reply or representation on the inquiry report. 'This amounted to her acceptance of findings in the Inquiring Authority's report, 4(b). After considering the inquiry report, written submissions made by the applicant during the inquiry and other relevant record, the Disciplmary Authority concluded that the proved changes against the applicant constituted grave misconduct, which impinge on her integrity and put an indelible stigma on her conduct. Because of the brazenness 31 DA.203/2019 with which multiple acts of fraudulent representations were committed by the applicant, 'it was proved that she committed those fraudulent representations consciously and deliberately which was unbecoming of a Government servant and was prejudicial to interest of National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research, Goa and decided to impose ihe penalty of herremoval from service.
AR). Thus by order of the [Nsciplinary Authority and Chairman, Governing Council, NCPOR dated 04.01.2019, the appli cai was removed from service. When the applicant did not submit any reply to the Inquiry Report inspite of extended tine allowed to her, it amounted to her admission of the proved charges. Therefore, conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority about grave misconduct, and lack of integrity on the part of the applicant were justified.
aid). The epplicant filed her appeal against the order of her removal whieh was also. sanaideted and with a detailed and reasoned order dated 21.02.2019, the Appellate Authority, Union Minister of Science and Technology, Earth Sclences and Environment, Forests and Climatic Change, Government of India rejected her appeal. In the O.A. and written submissions the applicant has made many allegations against the respandents with respect to the charges against her and conduct of the Inquiry. However, when the inquiry was conducted, the applicant was provided repeated apportunity to Inspect daily order sheets and ed DA 203/2019 hed other documents and to submit her reply to the inquiry report but she did not avail of them and never submitted any reply. Orders of both the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are detailed and well reasoned orders and in view of the proved charges against the applicant, we do not find any infirmity in these orders.
4{e). From the copies of the applications and attestation forms submitted by the applicant while applying for employment at NCAOR on 16.11.2004 and 22.11.2012, it is clear bevond any doubt that she submitted false information. This was in spite of clear warming mentioned in the opening part of the attestation form that furnishing of false information or suppression of any in the attestation form would be disqualification and is Hkely to render the candidate unfit for employment. under the Government/NCAOR. and if the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any fac stual i ie formation it the attestation form comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his service would be Hable to be terminated. The case record reveals that the applicant deliberately submitted false information and suppressed factual material information about her termination by the ISM, Dhanbad and employment with other institutions. In spite of her termination by ISM, Dhanbad on 19/21.01.2001, in the reasons for leaving her service with ISM, Dhanbad she wrote as 'None' and employment in next grade. This was utter Los tnd GQA.2O3/2019 "
falsehood committed by her.
4). In her submissions the applicant has also claimed thet the respondents were aware about her termination by ISM, Dhanbad when they selected her for appointment with NCAOR in . This statement is totally false. What the respondents knew about her was as per details submitted by her in her application form and attestation forms in P71 2004 and 22.11.2012 in which the applicant never pave the reason for leaving ISM, Dhanbad as termination from service, The respondents eto know about it only from the communications received fom ISM, Dhanbad on 30.09.2013 and 24.10.2613 that she was terminated from the post of Lecturer in the Department of Apphed Geology vide office order dated 19.01.2001. About pendency of dues of ISM, Dhanbad, the present respondent was informed by ISM, Dhanbad through their letters dated 15.01.2007 and 06.09.2012 and then with letter dated 24.10.2013 that the pending' due S " agaitist" the pre ssent applicant were of Rs.7,07, 496/-, Rs.13,93 349/. and Rsd3.25,062% upto the corresponding dates mentioned in thoae letters, Therefore, this is not sumething ereated by the present respondents ie. Authorities of NCAOR, Goa. Therefore, the applicant cannot blame the respondents about it. In her submissions she has also claimed that she does not have any dues of ISM, Dhanbad and for that she filed a Writ Petision in the Jharkhand High Court. However, a copy of decision on that Writ a4 QA.203/2019 Petition has not been submitted by the applicant. Therefore, we are unable to know the updated status on this issue, $(e). In addition to the unambiguous warning in the attestation form, in the DoPT OM dated 29.06.2616 on the subject of attestation form for verification of character and antecedents prior to appointment in Government service, in Para 4 it has been provided that in the provisional appointment letter it will be clearly mentioned that in case character and antecedents of the candidate are found not verified or any false information is given by the candidate in his*her self declaration, the provisional appointment letter will be cancelled forthwith and other criminal/legal action will also be taken as a conseguence. As provided in Para 7 of the OM, sines the candidate will submit the self declaration, in case any of the information is found incorrect, or in case the verification confirms that facts given by the candidate were not correct, then the appointing authority shall cancel the appointment letter forthwith. The candidate shall he. rendered unfit for any Government employment and appointing authority shall undertake other criminal/civil/legal action, as per provisions of Indian Penal Code (PC) ete as deemed fit. The contentions of the respondents in this rerard is in view of the above stipulations, the communication from the Director, NCAOR, Goa to the applicant dated 09.07.2013 that the aed i QA LOS2019 Fact Finding Committee had. found Inconsistencies in her documents submitted for securing employment and, therefore, she was advised to supply all the relevant documents. Therefore, this action of the respondents wag bonafide and there was nothing wrong intentionally dune against the applicant.
ath). In the O.A. the applicant has mentioned a nurnber of urelevant issues and allegations against many of the respondent autharities such as allocation/eviction of stall quarter allotted to her husband, numerous complaints to various authorities including the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Welfare and National Comumission for Women and others alleging gender bias, discrimination and sexual harassment by the respondents. For example, when the respondents took up renovation of the quarters and asked the apolicant's husband to move to guest house for time being § and ater pov, he this fact with the charges proved against the applicant in the disciplinary inguiry but even then the applicant has unnecessarily tried to make ar issuc of and allegation about it.
4g). In response to her complaint fo the Ministry of Women and PORE, the respondents and when the applicant complained against the Presiding Officer of that Committee, the respondents changed the Child Welfare, the Interrial Complaints Committee was constituted by 36 DASOBSO19 Presiding Officer. The allegation of the applicant that the Fact Finding Committee was an eyewash is totally fallacious and misleading allegation. When the Board of Inquiry was constituted after issuing of the charge-sheet on 30.01.2014, the applicant made allegations against the Board of Inquiry also. The applicant has also alleged that the respondents relied on her earlisr applications submitted from 2004 onwards for employment. Ifthe respondents have scrutinized her earlier applications, as per the warning in the attestation forms and DoPT OM of 29.06.2016 it seems to have been done just to verify sansistency in the information submitted by the applicant in those applications and her applications. and attestation forms submitted to NCAOR. There seems to be nothing wrong in this action of the aati 4i)). In spite of the submission of false information in her attestation forms, the applicant has contended that those details submitted by her were correct but she had contradicted he rself when she has finally admitted in her submission in this QUA. that at the end of probation, her seivieg was terminated by ISM, Dhanbad. This shows that she had failed in completing the probation satisfactorily and hence she was terminated.
4(k}. Fram the above details, it is clear that many of the complaints made by the applicant did not have any bearing on the charges framed in the disciplinary proceedings and decision taken by the 37 QA203/2019 ., disciplinary authority based on report of the Inquiring Authority. The applicant instead of understanding actions of the respandents in proper perspective and admitting the wrong committed by her, she percsives each of the respondent authorities as hostile to her and has repeatedly exhibited deviant and quarrelsore behaviour with the respondents. 4}. The casclaws relied upon by the applicant sted on pages 18-20 of the O.A. are of no help te her. In the case of Nirmala J. Thala Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2005 SC 21668, page 32 and 36, the main jasue was about considering of evidence of preliminary inquiry. In the present case the respondents have submutied that there was no separae preliminary inquiry conducted in this case. Therefore, the view taken in that caselaw is not relevant to the present case.
In Roop Singh Negi Vs. Panjab National Bank & Ors.
CAN T4381 2008 dated 19.12.2008, the conchision was that Inquiry Officer's report was based on surmises and conjunctures, which cannot be sustained and were not relevant. In the present case, the report of the Inquiring Authority was not based on such suritises and conjunctures. Decision of CAT, Principal Bench, in case of Paramit Singh Saini Vs. Union of India and another dated 15.07.2015, opportunity had not been given te the applicant to inspect documents but in the present case adequate opportunity was given to the applicant for this purpose which she did not avail. Therefore, the view of that 38 OAS 2019 caselaw is net applicable to the present case.
In decision of CAT, Principal Bench in case of Rita Chandhary Vs. Union of India & Others dated 06.10.2014, it was noted that FIR and evidence collected by the Investigating Officer in criminal case was used, so the view taken was that such evidence cannot be used as evidence in the departmental Inquiry. This is also not relevant in the present case.
vedic In CAT, Principal Bench decision in CMLP. Sinha Vs. Union of India & Others, the view taken was about necessity to examine material wimesses. In the present case when the applicant was asked to submit lst of her witnesses, she sought time of 3 months and thereafter did not given any such witness, 40m). The contention of the applicant that report of Fact Finding Committee was the reason for her termination is baseless and irrelevant.
The Fact Finding € "ommittes was constituted earlier and bas sed. on. its ots findings a show cause hotice was issued to her on 05.07.2013 and thereafter she was terminated from service on 16.08.2013. The applicant then challenged that termination order in earlier O.A. before this Bench of the Tribunal and her termination order was set aside because it was stigmatic and the respondents were directed to reinstate her and conduct regular inquiry by following proper procedure and principles of natural justice, [twas thereafter that the fresh charge-sheet 38 OIA 2OR2019 dated 31.01.2014 was issued to her. The facts of submission of false and wrong information by the applicant and suppression of vital facts by her in her applications and attestation forms were there in the report of the Pact Finding Committee too, However, the charge-sheet leading to the present impugned orders was separately and independently formulated and the facts covered in the charges also included some af the facts cavered in the FFC report. We do not find anything wrong in this action atthe respondents. The claim of the applicant in this regard is baseless and she has attempted just to deliberately mislead the Tribunal. a(n). The claim of the applicant that she was net heard on the report of Inquirme Authority is also false. The contention of the applicant is that photocopies of 20 years old documents were given to her, but if the record available with the respondents contained paotocopies of earlier dates, this cannot be a basis for not considering SESS e gS oak them when they were made ay ailable to , the applicant: The Inquiring Authority has effectively negated all such allegations of the applicant. From the sbove discussion, itis clear that the applicant in the present O.A. and in the written submissions has indulged in chicanery unnecessarily by mixing up all the issues pertaining to report ofthe Fact Finding Committee, earlier termination order, her complaints of gender discrimination, sexual harassment, shifting of accommodation afher husband, CBI inquiry, ete, 40 JA 203/2019 4{o}. From all thess contentions and submissions of the applicant it appears thet she has some psychological issues affecting her perceptions and understanding of different issues and view point of other persons. Because of it she has been rendered to be a vexatious complainant and she has been complaining again sts almost everybody in the respondents' organizations, starting from Administrative Officer, other office bearers at NCAOR, Secretary to Government of India, Department of Earth Sciences, Chairperson, Board of Incuiry, Member of FRC, Inquiring and Presenting Officer in disciplinary inquiry and others. She also made complaint to the Cubinet Secretary and National Commission for Women, New Delhi. Because of her repeated complaints, the "respondents had constituted Internal Complaints Committee to inquire into allegations of sexual harassment made by the applicant and that Committee found no evidence in those allegations. 4{p). After issuing the charge-sheet, the respondents constituted a Board of Inguiry but the applicant made complaints also aga sini the Chairperson, and Members of that Board of Inquiry, because of which action of the Board of Inquiry had to he stayed and thereafter new Inquiring Authority was separately appointed whe conducted the inquiry, and submitted the Inquiry report, based on which the impugned orders have been passed by the Competent Authority of the respondents, $(q)}. Gin representation of the present applicant dated 18.03.2013 al OAZOR2019 having a number of allegations, the Director of NCAOR, Goa submitied his detailed report on 03.08.2013. That report also contained details in Para 17 about incident which the applicant has alleged im the GLA. that he was verbally assaulted by Shr A.A. Singh, the Administrative Officer, The Director, OnS8. Rajan has explained in Para 17 of his report that before responding to the complaints made by the present applicant, ne thought it appropriate as Administrative Head to hold s ~conciligtory dislogue with the applicant so that better sense would prevail. He held a meeting with the applicant, her husband and others late in the evening of 25° April, 2013. He has stated that the present applicant while in the midst of that re-coneillatery talk which the Director was trying to initiate with the applicant and her husband and ooh AQ. she flared up, shouted and abused the AO. in the foulest languave fat umaginable and had to be i ieee rE ned by her bushand and taken away Ww vith her small 'child, half a dozen 1 others being imine witnesses.
When this was the factual position of unraly and deviant behaviour of the applicant, when the Director attempted for a re-concillatory discussion, the allegation of the applicant thal the A.O. assaulted her verbally is totally baseless.
air}. In the meanwhile the applicant Indged a complaint vide letter dated 29.09.2014 with the National Commission for Women (MCW), New Delhi alleging sexual harassment by Shri ALK. Singh, the 42 OA20Y2019 then A.O., DrS. Rajan, then Director and DrJohn Kurlan, then Scientist 'D'. In pursuance to letters of the Ministry of Wornen and Child Welfare dated 12.11.2014 and 26.02.2015, Internal Complaints Committee was constituted. But the applicant did not appear before the Internal Complaints Committee in spite of repeated opportunities given to her.
In view of representation of the applicant dated 24.01.2017 DeRamaliit Ray, Scientist 'F, IMD, New Delhi and DrKP. Pandian, Joint Secretary (Retired), MoES were appointed as Inquiry Authority and Presenting Officer. But the applicant also made complaints against DrKamaljit Ray and Dr K.P. Pandian and, therefore, Shri Pandian was replaced as Presenting ONicer by Ms-Ranju Madan. On completion of departmental inquiry proceedings, the inquiry Teport was submitted on U9.10.2018. For submission of representation of the applicant on the - report of the inquiring authority, on her request time was extended repeatedly upto 01.01.2019 and in the end she was informed that if she did not submit a representation within extended period it would be considered that she had nothing to say and appropriate action would be faken. Since the applicant did not submit any reply or representation even. during the extended period, the Disciplinary Authority took decision on 04.01.2019 to impose the penalty ef her removal from service, Since the applicant herself did not avail of the opportunity to submit her represeniation on the Inguiry report, she cannot contend now 43 OA 2038/2019 that she was not given an opportunity. This contention is totally baseless. That amounted to her admission of findings of the Inquiring Authority's report.
As}. The Inquiry report also stated that the charged officer was given 3 opportunities on 30.01.2018, 07.02.2018 and 13.02.2018 by the Inquiring Authority to comply with the principles of natural justice to inspect the listed documents but the charged officer never availed of this opportunity, On 14.03.2018 the applicant requested for addi dole time -- of 3 months to prepare list of additional documents and witnesses. The imguiry authority was not satisfied with the reason given by the Charged Officer for seeking extension. But by taking a sympathetic view, the Inquiring Authority provided additional time of ane month to her and fixed the hearing on 18.04.2018 by NCAOR.
The applicant remained present during hearing on
18. 4, 2018 when. copies of: 934 isted documents in the custody of CB out of list of 63 documents, and 8 witnesses submitted by the applicant on 17.04.2018, were made available and she was asked to explain relevance of cach of them in relation to the Articles of Charges framed against her and she was also given additional Hime for this. Then 9 gat ged poe af 63 documents and 2 cut of § witnesses demanded by the char officer were admitted and provided to the charged officer. The next date was 26.06.2018 when the present applicant reported for hearing but as OA BUR 2OLS without permission of the Inquiring Authority she left the venue without inspecting the documents. This was recorded as refusal on her part to inspect the additional documenta requested by herself Then on 06.07.2018 copies of attempted defence documents were sent to her by post and next hearing was fixed on 16.07.2018. The applicant remained present and submitted a written statement to the Inquiring Authority and read out all of them. This was taken on record but during that hearing the behaviour of the charged officer was very offensive, provocative and she used unparliamentary language against the Inquiring authority. Thus in spite of having provided opportunity for inspection of documents, the applicant did not avail of that opportunity. Thereafter the Inquiring authority submitted the report concluding that initiation of inquiry by the Disciplinary Authority was fully jusilfied and based on the explanations iven in the report all 7 charges listed in the Mermorandum of Charges gS In view of this factual position of facts and events during the inquiry the contention of the applicant in the O.A. that she was not given adequate opportunity for defending herself during the inquiry is totally baseless and deliberately misleading.
4(i). The applicant has alse raised in the O.A. a number of other issues Which are not relevant to the charges and conclusion of inquiry on them. For example, direction to her husband to vacate the quarter when LPS me & fet oS te pd cou "pees Sg that was to be taken up for renovation and to stay for the time being in the guest house. The applicant had been denying consistently through out in her submissions and including O.A, about her submissions of false information in the applications and attestation forms dated 16.11.2004 and 22.11.2012, but finally in her submissions now she has admitted that she was terminated by ISM, Dhanbad at the end of her probation. This obviously means that she could not complete the probation successfully and, therefore, she could not be confirmed in her appointment as Lecturer and was terminated.
a(n). From the above analysis of the case, over all it is clear that the applicant has deliberately indulged in chicanery to mix up unrelated issues. Instead of sincerely and honestly admitting the fact of submission of false and wrong information about reasons for leaving her. earlier employment with ISM, Dhanbad and suppression of material facts about her e experience certi ficates, ete related to her employment in other institutions, she has heen consistently contending that she did not by the Inquiring Authority and now in the O.A. has made misleading allewations that principles of natural justice were not followed during the inquiry. These allegations are totally baseless. Therefore, conclusions of the inquiring authority against the applicant, and competent respondent. authorities about submission of misleading and wrong 46 OA ZOS2019 information about her experience and relief from ISM, Dhanbad, ete and their conclusion that integrity of the applicant was doubtful are fully justified. As a result, the action taken by the respondents to terminate her by a reasoried and detailed order dated 04.01.2019 and the order of Appellate Authority dated 21.02.2019 on appeal of the applicant against the order of her termination dated 04.01.2019 were fully justified and we do not find any infirmity or flaws in those orders. Hence the O.A. has no merit and it deserves dismissal.
8. Decision :
The O.A. is dismissed. No casts.
(MrsWlarvindér Kaur Oberoi) (Dr. Bhayivali Sahai) * Member (J) Menmiber (4).