Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
B Pal Chowdhury vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 28 August, 2024
1
Item No. 68 (C-3)
O.A. No. 2378/2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2378/2017
This the 28th day of August, 2024
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Smt. B Pal Chaowdhury,
Age 60 years,
Retd. Deputy Director,
Song & Drama Division,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
Govt. of India,
R/o 27A, Fern Road,
Ballygange Post Office,
Kolkata - 700019.
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Padma Kumar S. And Mr. KK Mishra)
Versus
Union of India, through
The Secretary,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
A wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Satish Kumar)
2
Item No. 68 (C-3)
O.A. No. 2378/2017
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J):-
The applicant, while working as Deputy Director, Song & Dance Division (S&DD), Kolkata, was inflicted with a charge sheet dated 21/22.06.2010. He approached this Tribunal assailing the said charge sheet/memo in O.A. No. 4656/2011 and the proceedings in pursuance of the charge sheet had been stayed by the Tribunal vide order dated
02.01.2012. Since the disciplinary proceedings continued, the applicant preferred C.P. No. 476/2012, wherein the respondents had filed an affidavit, confirming that the inquiry officer had inadvertently proceeded with the charge memo and the penalty order was issued. This C.P. was closed on 25.09.2012 with liberty to the applicant to assail the penalty order. Aggrieved by the penalty order and the charge memo, the applicant has preferred the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 30.06. 2016 (ANNEXURE A-1).
(b) Direct the respondents consequential benefits to grant all including consideration for promotion to the post of Joint Director from the due date on which the 3 Item No. 68 (C-3) O.A. No. 2378/2017 concerned Promotion List is to be given as per the DoP&T Modal Calendar with further consequential benefits thereon.
(c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased grant under the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant, while drawing attention to the article of charges (p. 50), submits that the charge leveled against the applicant is that she had sent a call letter to one Mr. Bhupendra Singh, who was ineligible for appointment to the post of Stage Assistant at S&DD, Bhubaneshwar. He states that the disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against Mr. Bhupendra Singh by issuing a charge sheet dated 08.11.2006, which were subsequently withdrawn and thereafter, a fresh charge sheet was issued to him on 10.12.2008, he submits that even the second charge sheet issued to Mr. Singh was struck down by the respondents on 22.12.2010.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant reiterating charge leveled submits that the charge sheet issued to the beneficiary was struck down in 2010 and in the same year itself, a charge sheet was issued to the applicant. He adds 4 Item No. 68 (C-3) O.A. No. 2378/2017 that the charge sheet to the applicant was issued on 21/22.06.2010, whereas the penalty order confirming it was issued on 30.06.2010. The disciplinary authority in its wisdom while issuing the penalty order has not considered the fact that the very basis of the charge sheet was not in existence at the relevant point in time. He explains that this fact has been ignored by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) as well as the Center Vigilance Commission (CVC) in their advice. He details that this particular fact was, in fact, not placed before the UPSC and CVC before they rendered their advice. This fact was also not placed before the inquiry officer, while he submitted his report on 06.05.2013. This report was submitted after the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Bhupendra Singh were struck down.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant draws our attention to the document annexed at page 57 of the OA dated 12.12.2000 which gives the reason behind issuance of call letter to Mr. Bhupendra Singh. This communication dated 12.12.2000, though finds mention in the inquiry report, has been ignored by the Inquiry Officer. He submits that the 5 Item No. 68 (C-3) O.A. No. 2378/2017 charge against the applicant is that she had issued a call letter to an ineligible person. This ineligible person has been reinstated by the respondents, though he was initially placed under suspension and even the charges leveled against him were dropped. He also submits that Mr. Bhupendra Singh is still working with the respondents.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the O.A. and submits that the letter dated 12.12.2000 was, in fact, a creation of the applicant herself and there was no official approval for the same. He refers to the CVC advice annexed at page 54 of the O.A. and states that the respondents had acted on the basis of the advice of CVC dated 13.10.2009. He also draws our attention to the advice of the UPSC wherein the Commission, after considering the case of the applicant, has duly recommended the penalty, as prescribed in paragraph 5 of the order dated 18.10.2013 (p. 47). Therefore, the respondents were obliged to act in terms of the advice rendered by the UPSC and CVC.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6 Item No. 68 (C-3) O.A. No. 2378/2017
7. In order to decide the present O.A., we may refer to the article of charges (p. 52), which reads as under:-
"Article-l: Smt. B. Pal Chowdhury was working In Song & Drama Division as Deputy Director at S&DD. In the year 2001-2002 she was posted at S&DD, Kolkata.
2. There is a scheme in S&DD, according to which the Division empanels various categories of artistes for engagement on casual/occasional basis as and when it requires such artistes for its programme/activity purposes. Shri Bhupendra Singh was working with S&DD as empanelled artist at Delhi Hars." office of S&DD.
3. In S&DD there is also a scheme of staff artistes who are regular civil servants. S&DD issued an advertisement for filling up various categories of staff artistes posts vide Advertisement No. 1/2000/S&D dated 9th to 15th September, 2000. Shri Bhupendra Singh vide his application dated 14.10.2000 applied to a post of Stage Assistant at S&DD, Bhübaneswar in response to the afore mentioned advertisement. In accordance with Recruitment Rules (RRs) for the post of Stage Assistant in S&DD and advertisement issued as per the said RRs, educational qualification of (1) Matriculation or its equivalent and (2) Certificate from a recognized institute in one of the trades like carpentry, electrical wiring, tailoring or set painting. (3) Must have at least 2 years experience in handling stage and light equipment are essential. As per his application Shri Bhupendra Singh did not possess both educational and professional qualifications and he had only experience of working as empanelled artist and it is not clear from his application how many years/months of experience he got as an empanelled artist. Since he did not possess both the academic and professional/technical qualifications required for the said post, he was not to be called for 7 Item No. 68 (C-3) O.A. No. 2378/2017 interview. However, Smt. B. Pal Chowdhury, sent him the call letter.
4. Smt. Pal Chowdhury was thus allegedly found to be grossly negligent in the discharge of her duty amounting to grave misconduct while sending call letter to Shri Bhupendra Singh for the appointments made in the year 2000-2001. By doing so, she contravened Rule 3 (1) (i), 3 (1) (ii) and 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
8. It is reflected from the above that the charge leveled against the applicant is that she had issued a call letter to one Mr. Bhupendra Singh, who was ineligible for appointment to the post of Stage Assistant in S&DD, Bhubaneshwar. There were two charge sheets dated 08.11.2006 and 10.12.2008 issued to Mr. Bhupendra Singh, that read as under:-
"Statement of article of charge made against Shri Bhupendra Singh. Stage Assistant, Song & Drama Division, Nainital Article of charge: Shri Bhupendra Singh does not fulfill both the academic and professional/technical qualifications required for the post of Stage Assistant in Song & Drama Division, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, to which he was appointed with effect from 14.03.2001. But by utilizing his associatiori with officers of Song & Drama Division he managed to get called for interview, then selected and appointed to the post of Stage Assistant at S&DD, Bhubaneswar in an irregular, manipulative and fraudulent manner. Thus, he is liable for disciplinary action as per 8 Item No. 68 (C-3) O.A. No. 2378/2017 Government of India Instruction No.2 below the Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965."
"Statement of article of charge made against Shri Bhupendra Singh, Stage Assistant, Song & Drama Division, Nainital Article of charge: Shri Bhupendra Singh in his application dated 14.10.2000, in response to the advertisement No. 1/2000/S&D dated 9th to 15th September, 2000 for filling up various categories of staff artistes posts, claimed and gave a declaration that he fulfilled educational and other qualifications prescribed for the post of Stage Assistant in S&DD and all the statements made in the application are true and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief and further that he understood that action could be taken against him by the Division, if he would be declared by them to be guilty of any type of misconduct. However, it has been found that he did not fulfill both the academic and technical qualifications required for the post of Stage Assistant in S&DD to which he was appointed with effect from 14.03.2001. His appointment is therefore in contravention of Recruitment Rules for the post of Stage Assistant in S&DD and it was result of wrong declaration given by nim in the application form and undue favours shown to him by the then Director, S&DD Shri Prem Matiyani. The act and conduct of Shri Bhpendra Singh is in contravention of Rule 3 (1)
(i) (il) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Because of his ineligibility for appointment, he is liable for disciplinary action as per Government of India Instruction No.2 below the Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965."
9. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid two charge sheets, it is clear that in the first charge sheet issued on 08.11.2006, there was an allegation that Mr. Bhupendra 9 Item No. 68 (C-3) O.A. No. 2378/2017 Singh, in coalition with the officers of S&DD, Bhubaneshwar, managed to get the call for interview. This line has been omitted by the respondents, in their wisdom, in the second charge sheet. The second charge sheet has also been dropped by the respondents on 22.12.2010. From the same, it transpires that the respondents had chosen not to proceed against the accomplice, who may have contributed in extending the call letter to Mr. Bhupendra Singh. It is not in dispute that Mr. Bhupendra Singh, who was initially under suspension, was reinstated before the charge sheet was withdrawn. The contention of the respondents is that Mr. Bhupendra Singh was ineligible; however, this ineligible person still continues to work with the respondents. No action has been taken against the persons who selected him, appointed him and allowed this ineligible person to continue with the respondents.
10. The applicant has been proceeded against for a charge of which the beneficiary has already been absolved. Hence, the basis of the charge itself is no longer in existence as the second charge sheet issued to Mr. Bhupendra Singh has omitted the line that he was in association with different 10 Item No. 68 (C-3) O.A. No. 2378/2017 officers of the S&DD. In view of three charge sheets, one issued to the applicant and two issued to Mr. Bhupendra Singh, read together, it is clear that the applicant may have issued the call letter to Mr. Bhupendra Singh; however, he has been allowed to continue to work with the respondents. Hence, the very basis of the charge leveled against the applicant did not exist to invite the penalty. It will be worthwhile to refer to the findings of the inquiry officer (p. 178 - paragraph 60), wherein it is mentioned that the charged officer could not adduce acceptable evidence to support her claim of not being guilty. According to us, this reason cannot be accepted as it is the bounden duty of the Inquiry Officer to establish the charges and not the charged officer to prove that she was not guilty. In the absence of any evidence led by the Inquiry Officer to support the findings of the inquiry officer or to prove the charge and the fact that the charges have been held to be proved for the reason that applicant could not defend himself, the inquiry report is bad in law. Further, the inquiry officer has ignored the communication dated 12.12.2000 which was the precise defense of the applicant.
11Item No. 68 (C-3) O.A. No. 2378/2017
11. Relying on the report of the inquiry officer where the findings are not supported by any evidence and proceeding on the falsifying of the charged officer, the disciplinary authority has proceeded to pass the penalty order dated 30.06.2016.
12. For the reasons explained hereinabove, the O.A. is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.06.2016 is quashed and set aside. The applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits that may arise out of this order. The directions, as ordained above, shall be complied with within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Pratima K. Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/dd/