Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajesh Pratap Kanchan vs Union Of India Through on 30 July, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 1846/2009 MA No. 1344/2009 New Delhi, this the 30th day of July, 2009 Honble Mr. Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman(A) Rajesh Pratap Kanchan Son of Sh. Shivendra Kumar DGQA/RMD/CPC Room No. 30, G Block, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi 110 011. Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. J.B. Ravi) Versus Union of India through: 1 Deputy Secretary to Govt. of India, Department of Commerce (Supply Division), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi -110 011. 2. Secretary, Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce (Supply Division), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi -110 011. 3. Director (QA), Inquiring Authority, Hall No. 319, DGS&D, Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. Respondents ORDER (ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:
MA No. 1344/2009 For the reasons mentioned in this Misc. Application, we recall our order dated 15.07.2009 and restore the Original Application to its original number.
OA No. 1846/2009Rajesh Pratap Kanchan, Assistant Director (Supplies) (Grade I), applicant herein, has challenged Memorandum dated 01.09.2008 proposing to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. Counsel representing the applicant has raised two points for quashing the Charge Memo at the initial stage, the first being that the appointing authority of the applicant is President of India whereas the Memorandum has been issued by Deputy Secretary to Government of India, and further that the charges accompanying the Memorandum dated 01.09.2008 cannot sustain factually or legally. During the course of arguments, counsel for the applicant, however, admitted that Deputy Secretary to the Government of India has been delegated the powers by the President of India. The first point raised by counsel for the applicant has thus not been pressed. We do not find merit on the second contention of the counsel as well. The statement of Articles of charge framed against the applicant annexed with the Memorandum dated 01.09.2008 read thus:-
Article-I That Shri R.P. Kanchan, Assistant Director (Supplies) (Grade I) refused to sign sanction letter put up to him for signature on 29.12.06 in file No.OC-5/OC-2/CD-3/371. He was requested repeatedly to sign the sanction letter and perform the duties assigned to him by his officer superior Shri S.N. Terdal, Addl. GC & OSD(Lit.). But, Shri Kanchan did not sign the sanction letter stating one or other reasons.
Aforesaid acts of Shri Kanchan tantamount to insubordination, indiscipline, lack of devotion to duty and unbecoming of a Government servant. He has thus violated Rules 3(1)(ii) and Rules 3(1)(iii) or Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-II That Shri R.P. Kanchan, Assistant Director (Supplies) (Grade I), in file No. HW-2/RC/HPDE Pipes/916, instead of performing his duties as per office order, directed the alternative authorized signatory-officer to sign the sanction letter. Since this conduct of Shri Kanchan amounted to circumventing the office order and at the same time causing willful delay in the disposal of the work assigned to him and also as it amounted to compelling and pressurizing other official to disobey or to act contrary to said office order, Shri S.N. Terdal, Addl. GC & OSD (Lit.) (his officer superior) again directed him to perform his duties as per directions issued by the Administration without circumventing them and without causing willful delay in the disposal of the work assigned to him and to sign the sanction letter. But, Shri Kanchan refused to perform his duties stating that the duties assigned to him did not come within the purview of the duties of Asstt. Director, Grade-I, ISS to which he belongs.
Aforesaid acts of Shri Kanchan tantamount to insubordination, indiscipline, lack of devotion to duty and unbecoming of a Government servant. He has thus violated Rules 3(1)(ii) and Rules 3(1)(iii) or Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-III That Shri R.P. Kanchan, Assistant Director (Supplies) (Grade I) was allocated the following work by his superior officer Shri S.N. Terdal, Addl. GC & OSD (Lit.) while allocating the work in Litigation Branch between Assistant Directors for smooth functioning of the work in Litigation Branch:-
Shri Kanchan will handle all cases arising out of contracts placed by DGS&D, Hqrs. Pending in Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court as well as all cases arising out of contracts placed by Regional Offices pending in all Courts outside Delhi.
But, Shri Kanchan stated that the said allocation of the work is not in line with the duties of Assistant Director Grade-I, ISS to which he belongs to and shall not be responsible for the duties assigned.
Aforesaid acts of Shri Kanchan tantamount to insubordination, indiscipline, lack of devotion to duty and unbecoming of a Government servant. He has thus violated Rules 3(1)(ii) and Rules 3(1)(iii) or Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-IV That Shri R.P. Kanchan, Assistant Director (Supplies) (Grade I) submitted the file regarding payment of Rs.4000/- towards court fee and other charges without examining the claim of the Purchase Directorate to Shri S.N. Terdal, Addl. GC & OSD (Lit.) writing a note to the effect that payment of Rs.4000/- be sanctioned as requested by the Purchase Directorate. He was requested by Shri Terdal to get break-up of the amount claimed by the Purchase Directorate and verify that the claim is as per rules. Though Shri Kanchan got the particulars from the Purchase Directorate but once again without examining the said claim in the light of applicable rules he put up the file to Shri Terdal requesting for the sanction of the amount without specifying as to the amount required to be sanctioned and further stating that he was not aware of the fee to be deposited in the court. In fact, the exact amount of claim was Rs.4115/-, but ultimately after getting appropriate reply from the Purchase Directorate the amount which could be sanctioned in the light of the rules applicable was only Rs.3815/- which was noted by Shri Kanchan himself.
Aforesaid acts of Shri Kanchan tantamount to insubordination, indiscipline, lack of devotion to duty and unbecoming of a Government servant. He has thus violated Rules 3(1)(ii) and Rules 3(1)(iii) or Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-V That Shri R.P. Kanchan, Assistant Director (Supplies) (Grade I) was allocated the work of arbitration cases since Shri Kanchan was having some exposure to arbitration work and for smooth function of the litigation work OSD (Lit.). IT was felt by Shri S.N. Terdal, Addl. GC & OSD(Lit.) that it would be better to give him arbitration work instead of court work. Aforesaid work was allocated to Shri Kanchan by Shri Terdal while changing the work allocation between Assistant Directors in Litigation Branch. In response to the said allocation of work Shri Kanchan stated that the said allocation of work was not in line with the duties of Assistant Director, Grade-I, Indian Supply Service to which he belongs and therefore he asserted that he will not be responsible for the aforesaid work assigned to him.
Aforesaid acts of Shri Kanchan tantamount to insubordination, indiscipline, lack of devotion to duty and unbecoming of a Government servant. He has thus violated Rules 3(1)(ii) and Rules 3(1)(iii) or Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
2. All that has been urged during the course of arguments is that the applicant cannot be assigned the duties of handling legal affairs as he was not appointed for that purpose, and that insofar as Article of Charge No.IV is concerned, difference in amount sanctioned by the applicant and the one that should have been sanctioned is very negligible. At this initial stage, this Tribunal would not go into the defence that has been taken by the counsel for the applicant during the course of arguments. Surely, if the applicant may defend his case before the appropriate authority on the ground as sought to be taken in present Original Application, the concerned authority would definitely deal with the same and pass a speaking order. We do not find that a case is made out for interference at this initial stage on the ground as raised by the counsel for the applicant and noted above.
3. Dismissed.
(L.K. Joshi) (V.K. Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /naresh/