Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Karan Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd on 4 February, 2025
Item 24 (C-II)
1
O.A. No. 1344/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1344/2019
This the 4th Day of February, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Karan Singh
Age - 49 years
S/o Lt. Sh. Kundan Singh
R/o A-49, Camp Jail, Tihar, Delhi.
Post - Head Warder
Group - C
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan assisted by Mr. Abhimanyu &
Mr. Mukesh)
Versus
1. GNCT of Delhi
Through the Chief Secretary
Govt. of NCTD, Nav Sachivalya
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Director General (Prisons)
Tihar Jail, Near Lajwanti Garden Chowk
Janak Puri, New Delhi - 110 064.
3. The Principal Secretary (Home)
Govt. of NCTD
5th Level, C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate
New Delhi - 110 001.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H.A. Khan)
Item 24 (C-II)
2
O.A. No. 1344/2019
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J) In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the Inquiry Report dated 10.01.2018 forwarded to him vide communication dated 14.04.2018 (Annexure A-4) tendered by the Inquiry Officer after conducting inquiry pursuant to the impugned order dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure A-1). He has also challenged the order dated 27.06.2018 (Annexure A-2) vide which, pursuant to the inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has awarded the punishment of dismissal. Under challenge is also the order dated 17.01.2019 (Annexure A-3) vide which the applicant's statutory appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Authority upholding the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
2. In the present O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-
"8.1 To quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 27.06.2018 whereby the extreme punishment dismissal from service is being imposed upon the applicant and Order dated 17.01.2019 of Appellate Authority whereby statutory appeal of the applicant has been rejected and to further direct the respondents that applicant be reinstated back in service with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances. Item 24 (C-II) 3 O.A. No. 1344/2019 8.2 To quash and set aside the order dated 22.2.2017 whereby the DE was initiated against the applicant.
8.3 To quash and set aside the Finding of Enquiry Officer dated 10.1.2018 forwarded vide letter dated 14.4.2018. Or/and
(i) Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."
3. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed reply contesting the claim of the applicant and have stated that the Original Application deserves to be dismissed. The applicant has filed rejoinder and has reiterated his claim and grounds urged in support thereof.
4. Learned counsels for the parties have also filed written submissions.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have also perused the pleadings available on record and the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant.
6. In the present O.A., the applicant in support of his claim has raised various grounds including the one that the impugned report dated 10.01.2018 of the Inquiry Officer and the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority are vitiated for the same being in violation of mandatory provisions of the provisions of Rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as Item 24 (C-II) 4 O.A. No. 1344/2019 the Rules) and also the instructions issued vide circular dated 25.11.2007 (Annexure A-10) by the respondents.
7. The undisputed facts are that the applicant entered into the services of the respondents initially as a 'Warder' on 08.11.1994 and subsequently he was promoted to the post of 'Head Warder'. While working as Head Warder, the Disciplinary Authority ordered initiation of a departmental inquiry against him vide impugned order dated 22.02.2017. Pursuant thereto, Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed and the Inquiry Officer had submitted the impugned report dated 10.01.2018. The applicant submitted his defense statement before the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority passed impugned order dated 27.06.2018 awarding punishment of dismissal from service. The applicant submitted his statutory appeal, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 17.01.2019. Thus, the present O.A.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that on plain reading of the allegations against the applicant, it is apparent that the same cannot be construed as a misconduct in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases including in the case of Inspector Prem Chand vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 15192/2006), He further submits that even during Item 24 (C-II) 5 O.A. No. 1344/2019 the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has committed various irregularities and illegalities while submitting his impugned report dated 10.01.2018. However, at this stage, he restricts his arguments to the extent that the Inquiry Officer has violated the mandatory provisions as inscribed in Rule 14 (18) of the Rules and with a prayer that all the remaining grounds be left open.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited our attention to the assertions made by the applicant in para 5.24, wherein it is categorically pleaded by him that once all the prosecution witnesses were examined, it had been mandatory for the Inquiry Officer to conduct general examination of the applicant by asking him direct questions on the circumstances appearing against him in the impugned inquiry on account of evidences adduced during such inquiry. Instead of conducting general examination of the applicant, the inquiry Officer obtained written appraisal from the applicant and directed the Presenting Officer to submit his written brief and thus, did not adhere to the laid down procedure as inscribed in Rule 14 (18) of the Rules. Therefore, the impugned report is in utter violation of the provisions of 14 (18) of the Rules as well as the aforesaid circular dated 25.11.2007.
10. This fact has, though been vaguely denied by the respondents in the corresponding para of their reply, however, the denial is neither Item 24 (C-II) 6 O.A. No. 1344/2019 specific nor anything has been shown to us to indicate that the provisions of Rule 14 (18) of the Rules has been compiled with by the Inquiry Officer while conducting the inquiry and submitting his impugned report.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance upon various judgments including judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3091/1995 titled Ministry of Finance and Another vs. S.B. Ramesh, Civil Appeal No. 4715-4716/2013 titled S.R. Tiwari vs. Union of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1723/2008 titled Moni Shankar vs. Union of India & Anr., orders/judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 215/2009 titled Union of India & Anr. vs. D.S. Manchanda, WP(C) No. 1760/2008 titled Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting & Anr. vs. Tarlok Singh, WP(C) No. 7863/2010 & CM No. 20300/2010 titled Union of India & Anr. vs. Sh.D.R.Banerjee, WP(C) No. 3421/2001 titled Ex. Astt. Sub Inspector Kehar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) No. 2345/2015 titled Sat Narayan Kaushik vs. Comm. of Police & Ors. and order/judgment dated 18.10.2024 of a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal consisting one of us [Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)] in O.A. No. 2926/2017 titled P.L. Gupta vs. CPWD.
Item 24 (C-II) 7 O.A. No. 1344/2019
12. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has specifically brought to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority in his defense statement that inquiry has not been conducted in consonance with the provisions of the relevant rules. He argues that violation of the provisions of Rule 14 (18) of the Rules has been urged by the applicant even in his statutory appeal, however, the authorities under the respondents have not considered such plea of the applicant while passing the impugned Disciplinary and Appellate orders.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the assertions made by the respondents in the reply as well as written arguments filed on behalf of them submits that the applicant, while working as 'Head Warder', was issued charge memo under Rule 14 of the Rules for the misconduct that while working in Central Jail No. 8/9, Tihar, he committed gross misconduct inasmuch as on 14.05.2014 at the time of count open/morning lock-out, i.e., at around 5.30 a.m., he did not conduct head count of his ward, i.e. ward no. 2 as per the provision of Delhi Jail Manual and such delinquency of the applicant has been reported and proved by the Inquiry Officer in the impugned report. He submits that the Inquiry Officer had afforded adequate opportunity to the applicant during inquiry and the same has been conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the rules and instructions on the subject. He further Item 24 (C-II) 8 O.A. No. 1344/2019 adds that the competent Disciplinary and Appellate Authority had gone through all the available material on record including the representation/appeal of the applicant while passing the impugned orders. He argues that even after the inquiry, the applicant has been afforded adequate opportunity of defense and the impugned orders are detailed and reasoned one and passed in compliance of the principles of natural justice. He has further added that the Competent Disciplinary Authority was in favour of adopting a 'zero tolerance policy' particularly in the cases where prison staff was found negligent while performing their duty, which invited serious trouble for the security and safety of the Jails and inmates as well. The applicant was supposed to be vigilant, careful and responsible. However, he had shown a very casual approach towards his assigned duties. He submits that as the orders have been passed by the Competent Authority by following the relevant provisions of the Rules and principles of natural justice, this Tribunal while exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review is not required to interfere into the impugned report/orders.
14. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
15. The provisions of Rule 14 (18) of the Rules have been considered by this Tribunal as well as by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred to and relied upon by the Item 24 (C-II) 9 O.A. No. 1344/2019 learned counsel for the applicant and referred to hereinabove. However, for sake of clarity, the provision of Rule 14 (18) of the Rules is reproduced hereinbelow: -
"14(18) The inquiring authority may, after the Government servant closes his case, and shall, if the Government servant has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him."
16. A coordinate Bench of this Tribunal after considering the aforesaid provisions of Rule 14 (18) of the Rules, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.B . Ramesh (supra), a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India vs. Mr. Lalit Kumar (WP (C) No. 11396/2005) and in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. M/s Bharat Construction Corporation [CS (OS) 1811/2013] has ruled in paras 28, 31 & 33 of the judgment in the case of P.L. Gupta (supra) as under:-
"28. In so far as compliance to rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is concerned, the Enquiry Officer while carrying out general examination of the Charged Officer has asked him only two questions. Q. No. 1 is introductory question. He has invited attention of the applicant to documents P4/1 to P4/12 and asked him as to what action was undertaken by him (Charged Officer) in obtaining approval from the Competent Authority for filing recovery suit in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Charged Officer (applicant) responded by saying that he has already filed his reply on 31.10.2013. The stand taken by the Charged Officer on this issue is mentioned in Para 6 to 8 of his reply dated 31.10.2013. The Enquiry Officer did not ask any further question with regard to the issued raised by the applicant. Based on above, we hold the view that Inquiry Officer did not put any question to the applicant in respect of evidence against him in the inquiry proceedings. Only details of documents have been given and the applicant has been asked a question which is not based on the deliberation of inquiry and evidence coming against the applicant in the inquiry. In the Item 24 (C-II) 10 O.A. No. 1344/2019 Civil Appeal No. 3091 of 1995 decided on 02.02.1998 in the case of Ministry of Finance and Another vs. S. B. Ramesh, it was held that the Inquiry Officer should give an opportunity to the applicant to appear and then proceed to question him under sub-rule (18) of Rule (14) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The omission to do so is considered as a serious error committed by the Inquiry Officer.
XXXXXXX
31. We have also gone through law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3091 of 1995 in the case of Ministry of Finance and Another vs. S. B. Ramesh decided on 02.02.1998 and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 11396/2005 in the case of Union of India Vs. Mr. Lalit Kumar decided on 10.03.2011 and hold the view that the Inquiring Officer did not comply with the rule 14 (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which cast obligation upon the Inquiring Authority to question the delinquent official on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling to explain any circumstances as there is no reference to the evidence brought on record or circumstances appearing against applicant the general examination. In this case, the Inquiry Officer did not articulate and made assessment of circumstances going against the charged officer (applicant) and to satisfy the requirement of provision in perfunctory manner by asking a question. Further, as indicated in Para 22 above and position made clear by the Chief Engineer to CVO vide letter dated 13.05.2014 (Annexure-A/5), the reasons of negligence and delay in filing suit for recovery cannot be attributed to the applicant.
33. In such a situation, the charges of deliberate negligence leading to serious misconduct and in advertent negligence cannot be proved against the applicant."
17. The importance of compliance of the provisions of Rule 14 (18) of the Rules has been reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of D.S. Manchanda (supra), Tarlok Singh (supra) and D.R. Banerjee (supra) as well. However, for sake of brevity, the relevant paras of such judgments are not being reproduced herein.
Item 24 (C-II) 11 O.A. No. 1344/2019
18. The necessity of compliance of the provisions of Rule 14 (18) has been recognized and emphasized by the respondents as well in their circular dated 25.11.2007, as it would be apparent from plain reading of the said circular itself, which is reproduced as under:-
"No. F,7(48)99/DOV/8031 Dated: 25.11.2007 Sub: Conducting of departmental inquiries under the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 - reg.
Of late, it has been observed by the Chief Secretary, Delhi that the officers of NCT of Delhi, who are appointed as part time Inquiring Authorities for conducting departmental inquiries under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against the official of Govt. of NCT of Delhi do not scrupulously follow the procedure as laid down u/r 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In most of the cases, the Inquiring Authorities invent their own procedure and drift away from the prescribed procedure of rule. It has frequently been observed that the Inquiring Authorities do not obtain the defence of the Charged officers after the conclusion of Disciplinary Authority's case and also do not conduct the general examination of the Charged officers on the circumstances appearing in the evidence against them as provided under sub-rule 16 & 18 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Although shortcomings seem trivial, yet these are sufficient enough to render the entire proceedings ab initio. In order to avert such situations, the inquiries have been remitted to the Inquiring Authorities for holding further inquiry, which delays the finalization of disciplinary proceedings against the Charged officers and they have to suffer mental agony due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings.
The Chief Secretary, Delhi has expressed his displeasure about these procedural lapse repeatedly committed by the Inquiring Authorities in conducting the inquiries under Rule 14 if the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and directed that all the officers, who are appointed as Inquiring Authorities must scrupulously follow the provisions as laid down u/r 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Any laxity on the part of the Inquiring Authorities in this regard will be viewed seriously and action would be taken against them."
19. In the present case, there is a specific pleading that after the prosecution witness was closed and the applicant has not examined Item 24 (C-II) 12 O.A. No. 1344/2019 himself as a defense witness, the Inquiry Officer in place of doing general examination of the applicant in order to explain to him the circumstances appearing against him by way of evidence on record has obtained his written brief. This has been reiterated by the applicant in his pleadings before us and also the same has been pleaded by him in his appeal. However, the same has neither been considered by the Disciplinary Authority and/or by the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned orders.
20. In view of the judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, the adherence to provisions of Rule 14 (18) of the Rules is mandatory and violation thereof makes the inquiry report and subsequent orders passed based thereon vitiated.
21. In the light of the aforesaid, the present O.A. is allowed with the following orders:-
(i) The impugned report dated 10.01.2018 (Annexure A-
4), orders dated 27.06.2018 (Annexure A-2) and 17.01.2019 (Annexure- A-3) respectively are set aside.
(ii) The applicant shall be reinstated in service from the date of his dismissal. The respondents shall pass necessary order(s) in this regard.
(iii) The applicant shall be entitled for all consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and Item 24 (C-II) 13 O.A. No. 1344/2019 instructions on the subject for which the respondents shall pass order(s).
(iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks of receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) The respondents shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the applicant from the stage from which the impugned proceeding has been found to be vitiated and take the same to its logical conclusion.
(vi) In case occasion arises, the applicant shall be entitled to raise all grounds available to him under law, if so advised.
22. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(B. Anand) (R. N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /anjali/