Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. V.T. Prabhakaran vs The Union Of India Through on 29 July, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-986/2013
MA-721/2014
Reserved on : 22.07.2015.
Pronounced on : 29.07.2015.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Dr. V.T. Prabhakaran,
(Ex-Principal Scientist, IASRI)
346, DDA (SFS) Flats,
Pocket-2, Sector-19,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. . Applicant
(through Padma Kumar. S., Advocate)
Versus
1. The Union of India through
The Secretary,
Department of Agricultural Research & Education,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Through its Secretary,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
3. The President,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
4. The Director,
Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute,
PUSA, New Delhi-110012.
5. Dr. Sain Dass,
Inquiry Officer,
House No. 1075, Sector-9,
HUDA, Karnal-132001. .. Respondents
(through Sh. S.K. Gupta with Sh. Vikram Singh, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) A Memorandum of charge containing five Articles of Charge was issued to the applicant on 16.12.2003. He approached the Tribunal by filing OA-395/2004 against this Memorandum. This O.A. was decided by the Tribunal on 06.01.2005. Three of the charges mentioned in the aforesaid Memorandum were quashed and it was directed that enquiry be conducted against the applicant in respect of the remaining charges. The respondents issued a fresh chargesheet containing two Articles of charge on 19.07.2005. The Articles of charge were as follows:-
Article of Charge-I While working as Principal Scientist at IASRI, Dr. V.T. Prabhakaran has misused the internet system by displaying objectionable materials on the electronic board and E-Mail and made derogatory and disrespectful remarks against his superior officers by publishing undesirable material on Public Notice Board for IASRI internet system and tried to instigate other officer by the above act.
By his above act, Dr. V.T. Prabhakaran has exhibited a conduct unbecoming of an ICAR Officer and has thus contravened the provisions of Rule 3(I)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as extended to the ICAR employees.
Article of Charge-II While working as Principal Scientist at IASRI, Dr. V.T. Prabhakaran has been making false and baseless allegation against the Director and other officers of IASRI. He has also been making representations directly to the higher officers in the Council and brining outside/political pressure in furtherance of his service matters.
2. The applicant denied the charges and an enquiry was held. Meanwhile, the applicant retired on 28.02.2009. On 24.03.2009 the applicant was supplied a copy of the enquiry officers report and he was asked to submit his representation against the same. The applicant submitted his reply on 06.04.2009. Simultaneously, he also challenged the continuance of proceedings against him under Rule-9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 by filing OA-1055/2009 before this Tribunal in which he contended that the charge against him was not grave and, therefore, Rule-9 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 could not have been invoked. This O.A. was decided by the Tribunal on 10.11.2009. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the charges made against the applicant cannot be said to be grave and, therefore, the applicant cannot be proceeded against under Rule-9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
3. The respondents challenged the aforesaid order before Honble High Court of Delhi by means of Writ Petition No. 2292/2010. Vide their order dated 26.07.2010 the Honble High Court of Delhi allowed Writ Petition No. 2292/2010 and quashed the order of this Tribunal dated 10.11.2009. Further directions were given to the Disciplinary Authority to pass necessary orders in the disciplinary proceedings after receiving the response of the respondents to the enquiry officers report. The applicant filed SLP No. 24669/2010 against the aforesaid order but the same was dismissed on 10.09.2010 by Honble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the applicant filed Review Application No. 392/2010 before Honble High Court of Delhi but the same was also dismissed on 24.09.2010. The respondents then passed a penalty order dated 18.04.2011 withholding 10% of the pension of the applicant for a period of three years. The applicant challenged the aforesaid order of the Tribunal by filing OA-2046/2011. This was decided on 21.12.2011 by the Tribunal. The operative part of the order reads as follows:-
7. To conclude, for the reasons elaborated in para 6, we do not find the impugned penalty order dated 18.4.2011 in its present form as sustainable and in consonance with law. Even through the applicants learned counsel would urge for giving a quietus to the present issue, that may not be the appropriate course. To meet the ends of justice the OA is allowed partly and disposed in terms of the following directions:-
i) The impugned penalty order dated 18.4.2011 is quashed and set aside.
ii) The matter is remitted to the respondents for passing a fresh order by the competent authority only on the ground raised in para 17 (iii) of the order dated 18.4.2011. While reconsidering the matter, the law as propounded on the subject by the Honble High Court in the WP (C) 2292/2010 vide its common order dated 26.7.2010 (and cited by us in the body of our order) would be kept in mind.
iii)The reasoned and speaking fresh order as per serial no.(ii) above is to be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iv)The prayer of the applicant regarding restoration of full pensionary benefits would depend upon the view being taken by the competent authority in the order now to be passed. No direction at this stage is being given with regarding to the prayer for interest at exemplary rate.
No orders as to costs. Para-17(iii) referred to in the above order reads as follows:-
17.(iii) It is evident that the language used by the Charged Officer on the notice board of the Institute or in the e-mail is highly derogatory, offending and insulting to his superiors. It could be worth mentioning that the High Court has said that the term misconduct in office can be defined as any unlawful behaviour by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. Further, misconduct can also be defined as wrongful intention and a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour. In the instant case, from the Articles of Charge, it is evident that the misconduct of the Charged Officer is intentional one and willful in character and, therefore, the said misconduct can definitely be said to be a grave misconduct. 3.1 In compliance of the aforesaid directions of this Tribunal the respondents have passed penalty order dated 30.03.2012, which has been impugned in this O.A. The respondents have again imposed penalty of withholding of pension of the applicant by 10% for a period of three years.
4. From the above narrated facts, it is clear that this Tribunal had given liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order only on the ground raised in Para-17(iii) of the order dated 18.04.2011. The aforesaid para has also been reproduced above for the sake of convenience. In the impugned order, the respondents have stated as follows:-
7. Whereas from the above remarks of Dr. V.T. Prabhakaran it is evident that:
(a) Dr. Prabhakaran was not only making scandalous remarks against senior officers but was also instigating other officers by inviting responses from them with reference to these remarks.
(b) Dr. Prabhakaran has even ridiculed the grant of Padma Bhushan award to Dr. R.S. Paroda, DG, ICAR which is given by President of India himself.
(c) Dr. Prabhakaran has referred to his Deputy Director General as Daddy ji.
(d) Dr. Prabhakaran was spreading misinformation about the organization and wasting his time and that of others also.
(e) Dr. Prabhakaran by means of open display of defamatory slogans on notice board against senior officers of the Council was encouraging others to indulge in such misdemeanours.
8. Whereas the time and energy put in by the Charged Officer in such activities indicate that his focus was certainly not on the responsibilities assigned by the office but somewhere else. As the Charged Officer was preoccupied with such activities, it can be concluded that the Charged Officer was very much off the target and goals set by the organization. The officer whose total attention is consumed by such activities cannot be dedicate his devotion to the duty and thereby it can be said that the Charged Officer fails on the touchstone of integrity to the devotion to duty stipulated by the Honble High Court in its order dated 26.07.10.
9. Whereas, it may be observed that on evaluating the gravity of the charge on the principle prescribed for this purpose by the Honble High Court in its order dated 26.07.10, the misconduct of Dr. Prabhakaran comes under the category of grave misconduct.
10. Whereas, after considering the records of the inquiry and the facts and circumstances of the case afresh in the light of order dated 21.12.2011 of Honble CAT, PB, New Delhi, the President, I.C.A.R. being the Disciplinary Authority in this case, is of the opinion that Dr. V.T. Prabhakaran, Principal Scientist (Retired) indulged himself in an act of gross indiscipline by using derogatory, offending and insulting remarks against his superiors in the Council. In nutshell, Dr. V.T. Prabhakaran is guilty of grave misconduct. Their conclusion is that the applicant was totally preoccupied with activities unconnected to the duties and, therefore, was very much off the target and goals set by the organization. He failed to maintain integrity to the devotion to duty as stipulated by Honble High Court in their order dated 26.07.2010. They have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the charge made out against the applicant constituted grave misconduct and was, therefore, punishable under Rule-9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
5. In support of his case, the applicant has stated that Rule-9 can be invoked only in cases of grave misconduct as laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the cases of D.V. Kapoor Vs. UOI & Ors., 1990 AIR 1923, P. Ramachander Chetty Vs. E-in-C, Panchayat, 2001(3)ALD 558 and UOI & Anr. Vs. MJA Khan & Anr., decided by Honble High Court of Delhi on 12.08.2010. The applicant has submitted that the respondents have erred by invoking Rule-9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as the charge against the applicant was not grave enough. In our opinion, this issue has already been considered by Honble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 2292/2010 when they had set aside the order of this Tribunal by which chargesheet against the applicant had been quashed on the ground that the charges were not grave enough for proceeding under Rule-9. Thereafter, the respondents had passed a penalty order, which was considered by this Tribunal in OA-2046/2011. The Tribunal had quashed the aforesaid order but had given liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders by reconsidering the issue raised in Para-17(iii) as mentioned above. The same has been done by the respondents now in compliance of the directions of the Tribunal. The respondents in the impugned order have justified why they have treated the charges against the applicant as grave. According to them, the applicant was making scandalous remarks against senior officers and was also instigating other officers to do the same by inviting responses from them to these remarks. He even ridiculed the Padma Bhushan award to the then Director General, ICAR which is given by President of India himself. He was spreading misinformation about the organization and wasting his time and that of others. He was also openly displaying defamatory slogans on notice board against senior officers of the Council and thus was encouraging others to indulge in such misdemeanours. The respondents have come to the conclusion that having been preoccupied with such candidates, the officer was not devoted to his duty and was far from achieving the targets or goals set by the organization. In our opinion, the respondents cannot be faulted for coming to the conclusion that grave misconduct was committed by the applicant. The judgments relied upon by the applicant cannot be of much help to him.
6. The applicant has also contended that the incident for which the applicant was punished was very old and as held by this Tribunal in OA-2469/2003 (Smt. Santosh Verma Vs. Commissioner, KVS & Ors.) vide order dated 18.05.2004, Rule-9 of CCS(Pension) Rules cannot be invoked for an incident, which was more than four years old. We do not find this ground to be very convincing as the impugned order is only culmination of the proceedings that were initiated against the applicant by issue of a charge Memorandum dated 19.07.2005. Ten years period in between has been consumed due to pendency of various Court cases mentioned above.
7. During the course of the arguments, we had observed that the impugned order has been passed by the President of ICAR Society whereas Rule-9 of CCS(Pension) Rules empowered only the President of India to pass an order withholding the pension. Confronted with this observation, learned counsel for the respondents have supplied to us a copy of the Rules and Bye laws of ICAR Society, according to Rule-4 of which the President of the Society is the Minister in-charge holding the portfolio of Agriculture in the Union Cabinet. Further, as per byes law framed under Rule-40 of the ICAR Society Rules, bye law-9 (e) reads as follows:-
In the application of the various Rules and Regulations of the Government of India, as amended or altered or modified from time to time and applicable to the Society, the powers vested in the President of India shall be exercised by the President of the Society. and bye law-31 reads as follows:-
The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, of the Government of India for the time being in force shall apply so far as may be, to the employees of the Society subject to the modification that:-
i) reference to the President and Government Servants in the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules shall be construed as references to the President of the Society and Officers and employees of the Society respectively, and
ii) reference to Government and Government Servant in the Central Civil Services Conduct Rules shall be construed as references to the Society and Officers and employees of the Society respectively.
8. On the basis of the above, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it is clear as per Rules and Bye laws of ICAR a reference to President in Government Rules shall be construed as a reference to the President of India as far as ICAR employees were concerned. In our opinion, the response given by the respondents is convincing.
9. All other grounds regarding the disciplinary proceeding have already been dealt with by this Tribunal in OA-2406/2011 and liberty had been given to the respondents to pass a fresh order only with regard to Para-17(iii) as mentioned above. This has now been dealt with by us above. Thus, no other ground remains to be considered. We find no merit in this O.A. and the same is dismissed. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /Vinita/