Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
V.V. Subbaramaiah Setty vs Sarvesh Berry Dated 9.12.2004 Wherein ... on 10 February, 2009
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
HYDERABAD
O.A. No.85/2009 Date of Decision: 10.02.2009
Between:
V.V. Subbaramaiah Setty ... Applicant
And
1.The Chief General Manager,
Southern Telecom Projects (BSNL),
25, Greenways Lane, R.A. Puram,
Chennai 600 028.
2.The Deputy General Manager,
Network Internet Backbone,
NIB Projects, 5th floor,
BSNL Bhavan, Adarshnagar,
Hyderabad.
3.The Deputy General Manager (BSS-HD)
& Inquiry Officer,
O/o General manager Cellone,
2nd floor, CTO Compound,
Secunderabad 500 003.
... Respondents
Counsel for the applicant ... Mr.A. Raghu Kumar
Counsel for the respondents ... Mr. M.C. Jacob, Addl.CGSC.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mrs. Bharati Ray ... Member (Judl.)
Hon'ble Mr. Hriday Narain ... Member (Admn.)
O R D E R
{As per Hon'ble Mrs. Bharati Ray, Member (Judl.)} Heard Mr. A. Raghu Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.C. Jacob, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. This application has been filed questioning the charge memo no.CGMP/CNI/VVS/RDA/2008/78 dated 29.7.2008 and order No.CGM/ CNI/VVS/RDA/2008-09/18 dated 3.12.2008 issued by the first respondent mainly on the ground that the applicant has been issued with the charge memo on the identical charge levelled against him in the criminal proceedings. He has also annexed a copy of the charge sheet at page 37 as Annex.A-III to the OA. It is also seen from Article-I that there is a mention of FIR vide No.RC13(a)/2006 dated 24.5.2006 filed in the Special Court of CBI Cases, Hyderabad. It is the contention of the applicant that although he has made a representation to the charge memo filed against him to the Chief General Manager, Southern Telecom Projects, Chennai dated 9.9.2008 whereby he has denied the charges and at the same time has referred to the Memo No.TA/LC/12-255/2004 dated 6.1.2005 of CGM, AP.Circle, Hyderabad but the respondents without considering the same have appointed Inquiry Officer vide order dated 3.12.2008, copy of which is annexed at page 76 of the OA. He, therefore, submits that the departmental proceedings cannot be continued simultaneously and the charge sheet has to be issued taking due care as instructed in the letter dated 6.1.2005 (supra). Learned counsel for the respondents however has drawn our attention to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HPCL & Others Vs Sarvesh Berry dated 9.12.2004 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia held that where an employee is charged for possessing assets disproportionate to known source there is no question of any prejudice in continuing both proceedings simultaneously because it is for the prosecution to establish its know source and the employee concerned has to disclose his source of acquisition of assets. Learned counsel for the applicant however submits that the charge is not exactly identical with that of the charge framed against the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in as much as in the said case the petitioner therein did not inform the department with regard to the acquisition of the assets. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs Noida & Others dated 15.1.2007 reported in (2008) SCC (L&S) 672 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the department was directed to consider the prayer made by the petitioner therein to keep the proceedings in abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in the light of the principles set out in HPCL case (supra) and Ttaranchal TRC case {(2006) 6 SCC 366}.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant would make an exhaustive representation explaining how he he will be prejudiced in the criminal proceedings if the departmental proceedings continue simultaneously and requesting to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance and seeks for one week's time to make such representation. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant and the above two judgements, we direct the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant if so made within one week from today in the light of the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra). Till such time the representation is disposed of, the respondents shall not proceed with the departmental proceedings. OA is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
(HRIDAY NARAIN) (BHARATI RAY) MEMBER (ADMN.) MEMBER (JUDL.) Dated the 10th February, 2009 (Dictated in Open Court)