Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajesh Anand vs M/O Human Resource Development on 28 February, 2022
1
OA No.2519 of 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
OA No.2519/2016
(Through Video Conferencing)
New Delhi, this the 28th day of February, 2022
Hon'ble Mrs. Manjula Das, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Prof. Rajesh Anand
S/o Late Prof. A.K. Prasad,
Aged about 54 years,
R/o 170, MIG Flats, Prasad Nagar,
New Delhi. ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sanjiv Joshi)
VERSUS
Union of India through
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. University Grant Commission through
Chairman,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi.
3. University Grant Commission through
Secretary,
Central Regional Office,
Tawa Complex Bitan Market,
E-5, Arera Colony, Bhopal-16
Madhya Pradesh. ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Apporv Kurup, Mr. Gyanendra
Singh and Mr. L.C. Singhvi)
ORDER (Oral)
2 OA No.2519 of 2016 Hon'ble Mrs. Manjula Das, Chairman In the present OA, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a. quash/set aside the impugned office order no.10-5/2014(Admn.).1/A&B) of dismissal from service dated 15.06.2016 (Annexure A-1), charge sheet dated 24.04.2014 (Annexure A-2), enquiry report dated 25.02.2016 (Annexure A-3) issued by the respondents;
b. declare the dismissal order no.10- 5/2014(Admn).1/A&B dated 15.06.2016 as illegal and unjustified (Annexure A-1).
c. direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits with seniority and promotion in accordance with law.
d. pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the instant OA, are that the applicant joined the respondent/UGC on 25.01.1997 as Deputy Secretary on probation for two years in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5000 and was confirmed on 27.03.2000. It is stated that the applicant was subsequently promoted as Joint Secretary in the year 2003 and was posted in Northern Regional College Bureau entrusted with the affairs relating to colleges of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and 3 OA No.2519 of 2016 Jammu & Kashmir. It is further stated that during his entire service, the applicant worked on several assignments with great responsibilities to the best of his ability, which brought good reputation to the respondent/UGC as well as himself.
3. The applicant has stated that the respondent no.2, who was then Secretary to the Commission, by virtue of his position and authority, time and again forced him to process and sanction grants to colleges of his choice, besides seeking applicant's favour in appointment of various ineligible incumbents as lecturers. However, applicant did not accede to demands of respondent no.2, which turned the respondent revengeful. It is further stated that the respondent no.2, on being designated as the Chairman of UGC, in order to exact revenge, misused his office and restricted the extent and quality of the assignments entrusted to the applicant in order to marginalize him and to implicate him in false cases. It is contended by the applicant that as a result of ongoing humiliation, he had to opt for VRS on 28.08.2013, which was, however, rejected in a cryptic manner. Moreover, without assigning any 4 OA No.2519 of 2016 reason, the respondent no.2 immediately transferred the applicant to Bhopal on 05.10.2013 in violation of transfer policy of the Commission. The applicant submits that the respondent no.2 would not stop at that and placed the applicant under suspension on 16.01.2014 in violation of Rule 21 of GFR and the guidelines of the Government of India on suspension.
4. It is further submitted that after a lapse of four months, the respondent no.2 issued a charge-sheet dated 24.04.2014 containing the following Articles of Charge, which was sent to the applicant by speed post at his Delhi address while he was posted in Bhopal:-
"Article-1 Dr. Rajesh Anand in his letters dated 28.08.2013 while serving notice of Voluntary Retirement from Service of UGC and in his subsequent two letters dated 06.09.2013 and 13.09.2013, made wild and unfounded allegations against the functioning and action of Commission, its officials and the Chairman, UGC by using intemperate language and thus he breached the discipline of the Commission displaying a conduct prejudicial to the interest and reputation of the Commission.
By this act Dr. Rajesh Anand has failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of UGC, thereby contravened the Regulation 3 of UGC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1967 and the analogous provision contained in CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as applicable.
Article-2
5
OA No.2519 of 2016
Dr. Rajesh Anand while on
unauthorized leave, abused his official position and misused the UGC insignia on the communications made by him to various authorities of UGC, under his individual capacity.
By this act Dr. Rajesh Anand has failed to maintain absolute integrity and thus acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of UGC, thereby contravened the Regulation 3 of UGC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1967 and the analogous provision contained in CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as applicable.
Article-3 Dr. Rajesh Anand has indulged in writing and approaching authorities outside the Commission and leveling baseless allegations against UGC authorities. He has also written directly to the Prime Minister making sarcastic remarks about the UGC. He has also directly approached the Members of Parliament & got them to write to the Hon'ble Prime Minister and other dignitaries/authorities against the UGC authorities, bypassing the available normal channels and ignoring the norms and discipline of the UGC.
By this act Dr. Rajesh Anand has failed to maintain the normal official decorum and discipline, thereby acted in a manner of unbecoming an employee of UGC, thereby contravened the Regulation 3 of UGC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1967 and the analogous provision contained in CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as applicable.
Article-4 While working as Joint Secretary, UGC Central Regional Office, Bhopal, Dr. Rajesh Anand was placed under suspension w.e.f. 16.01.2014 vide office order No.08/2014 (F.No.6-1/97 (Admn.I A&B) dated 16.01.2014 with the direction not to leave his headquarter i.e. Bhopal without prior approval of the Competent Authority, whereas, Dr. Rajesh Anand by ignoring the above directions did not remain present at his declared place of headquarters.
By this act Dr. Rajesh Anand has failed to comply the directions of the Competent Authority and failed to maintain absolute 6 OA No.2519 of 2016 integrity, thus acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of UGC, thereby contravened the Regulation 3 of UGC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1967 and the analogous provision contained in CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as applicable.
Article-5 During his posting in UGC, New Delhi and subsequently at Central Regional Office, UGC Bhopal, Dr. Rajesh Anand had remained absent from his duty in UGC unauthorisedly without prior sanction of leave from the competent authority.
By this act Dr. Rajesh Anand has failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of UGC, thereby contravening Regulation 3 of UGC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1967 and the analogous provision contained in CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as applicable.
Article-6 While working as Joint Secretary, UGC New Delhi and discharging the duties as a Bureau Head of R.O. Cell, Dr. Rajesh Anand replaced the noting portion of page 1 to 8 of F.No.6-1/2012 (Committee-ERO/RQ) wherein the names of Experts for Eastern Regional Office, UGC Kolkata were to be decided, thereby, Dr. Rajesh Anand misled the higher authorities to take action on the factual position of the matter. Subsequently, Dr. Rajesh Anand admitted this fact in writing which is on records of UGC.
By this act Dr. Rajesh Anand has failed to comply the directions of the Competent Authority and failed to maintain absolute integrity, thus acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of UGC, thereby contravened the Regulation 3 of UGC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1967 and the analogous provision contained in CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as applicable."
5. The applicant stated that Sh. S. Satyam, a close aide of respondent no.2/Chairman-UGC was 7 OA No.2519 of 2016 appointed as Inquiry Officer in December, 2014, and that as per rules the inquiry ought to have been completed within 180 days from the date of appointment of the IO, but the proceedings commenced only in March, 2015, i.e., after a delay of two months. However, during the course of document inspection, the applicant pointed out regarding tempering of original documents and requested the IO to take appropriate action. However, the IO, instead of considering the request of the applicant, ignored his objection. As the said act of the IO, according to the applicant, was biased and not in consonance with the procedure of law, he filed a Bias Petition against the IO on 07.10.2015. It is further pleaded that without disposing of the aforesaid Bias Petition, the IO convened ex parte in camera hearing at Bhopal in consecutive four sittings, without any notice or any other type of intimation to the applicant, and submitted the inquiry report holding all the charges as proved. It is contended that the disciplinary authority in violation to Rule 15 (1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, accepted the inquiry report, despite knowing that the Bias Petition preferred by the applicant long back 8 OA No.2519 of 2016 was pending for decision. In these circumstances, the inquiry should have been stopped immediately on filing of the Bias Petition and should commence only after disposal of the said petition as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tilak Ch. V. Kamla L Prasad Shukla [(1995) Supp.1 SCC 2].
6. It is further pleaded that the disciplinary authority furnished a copy of the inquiry report to the applicant for his comments as per provision of Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Since, according to the applicant, the inquiry was illegal on the face of the rules and the judicial precedents, the applicant could not comment on the inquiry report, except regarding violation of rules, instructions and law on the subject, vide his reply dated 13.04.2016. However, the disciplinary authority, allegedly with a pre-meditated agenda and without disposing of the bias petition, imposed the penalty of 'dismissal from service' upon the applicant with immediate effect, vide OM dated 27.05.2016 under Regulation 10(ix) read with Regulation 14(4) (i)(b) of UGC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, in consequence of an illegal inquiry. 9 OA No.2519 of 2016
7. The applicant stated that since the Bias petition filed by him has not been disposed of, the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon him is arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. Hence, he has filed the instant OA seeking the reliefs, referred to hereinabove.
8. Respondent no.1 has chosen not to file its reply being a proforma party. However, respondents no.2 & 3 have filed their reply opposing the OA. It is stated that the charges levelled against the applicant were meticulously inquired into in detail by affording opportunity to him to defend his case at every stage of the proceedings, and the inquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charges against the applicant stood proved. It is further stated that the disciplinary authority, after taking into account the gravity of the charges, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service upon the applicant.
9. Insofar as rejection of the VRS notice of the applicant is concerned, it is stated by the respondents that the same was considered by the Administration of the Commission and was found 10 OA No.2519 of 2016 that the service rendered by the applicant was not sufficient to make him eligible to opt for VRS and, therefore, rejected the same vide order dated 01.10.2013. It is further stated that there is no procedural lapse on the part of the respondents in holding the inquiry proceedings, which resulted into imposition of punishment of dismissal from service upon the applicant being commensurate to the charges levelled against him.
10. Heard Mr. Sanjiv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. Apporv Kurup, Mr. Gyanendra Singh and Mr. L.C. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents, and have perused the material on record.
11. Perusal of records reveals that before issuing the charge sheet and initiation of departmental proceedings, the applicant had served a notice dated 28.08.2013 seeking VRS. Though the same was rejected, vide order dated 01.10.2013 on adminsitrative grounds, immediately thereafter, the applicant was served with the chargesheet dated 24.04.2014 containing six Articles of charge. It is also seen that on conclusion of the departmental 11 OA No.2519 of 2016 inquiry, the charges were found proved by the inquiry officer. The inquiry report was accepted by the disciplinary authority, who, in turn, proposed the punishment of dismissal from service upon the applicant, vide order dated 27.05.2016, calling upon him to submit his comments/submissions on the proposed penalty. It is further seen that in its 516th meeting held on 15.06.2016, the Commission considered the submissions made by the applicant on the proposed penalty and rejected the same. Hence, the punishment of dismissal from service remained unchanged as was decided by the Commission in its 515th meeting held on 20.05.2016.
12. After going through the articles of charge, we are of the considered view that the charges against the applicant are not too grave to attract the extreme punishment of dismissal from service in terms of service law. It is an admitted fact that the applicant has pensionable service and, therefore, even if the respondents were of the opinion that continuation of the applicant in service would be undesirable, he could have been retired from service compulsorily keeping in view the service rendered by him with the 12 OA No.2519 of 2016 respondent-department, and in such a situation, the applicant will become entitled to pensionary benefits. Even if the whole case of prosecution is taken to be true, the impugned punishment shocks our judicial conscience being highly excessive, harsh, severe and disproportionate to the proven delinquency. We are also of the view that for every lapse on the part of the employee, serious punishment depriving him and his family of the entire livelihood is not desirable.
13. In view of the observation made above, we allow the instant OA. The impugned order of punishment dated 15.06.2016 is set aside. The applicant shall be deemed to have been reinstated in service forthwith. It is made clear that the applicant, on reinstatment, will not be entitled to any back wages or arrears thereof from the date of impugned dismissal order till the date of reinstatent, but shall be entitled only to the notional benefits. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to impose any punishment other than dismissal/removal from service by taking into account the entire service rendered by him with the department. The manner in which the period the applicant remained under suspension/out of service 13 OA No.2519 of 2016 is to be treated, shall be decided by the respondents in accordance with rules.
14. The exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Manjula Das) Member (A) Chairman /maya/lg/na/