Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Oleena C S vs M/O Mines on 3 March, 2023
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00440/2016
Friday, this the 3rd day of March, 2023
CO RAM :
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Oleena C.S, aged 35 years
W/o. Rajeev Kumar J,
Geologist, Geological Survey of India,
Manikanteswaram P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
Residing at Parvathimandiram, Aniyoor (Temple Road),
Chempazhanthy P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. V. Sajith Kumar)
Versus
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Mines, Department for Geological Survey of India,
Government of India, New Delhi - 100 001.
2. The Director General, Geological Survey of India,
Central Head quarters 27, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Kolkata - 700 016.
3. The Deputy Director General,
Geological Survey of India, Manikanteswaram P.O,
Geological Survey of India, Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala - 695 013. - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. O.M. Shalina, SCGSC)
The O.A having been heard on 23rd February, 2023, this Tribunal delivered the
following order on ...........:
2
ORDER
Per: K.V. Eapen, Administrative Member The applicant in this Original Application (O.A) is a Geologist working with the Geological Survey of India (G.S.I), Thiruvananthapuram. She is aggrieved that she was not promoted as Senior Geologist in spite of the fact that she was found fit for promotion by the relevant Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in her case. It is submitted that all other Geologists of 2010 select list except the applicant were granted the promotion as Senior Geologist by the order dated 17.12.2015, a copy of which has been produced as the impugned order at Annexure A-1.
2. The applicant had entered service as a Geologist on 1.11.2010. Initially she had been posted in the Karnataka region at Bangalore, but later was transferred to Kerala. She submits that, she made a representation to the 2 nd respondent Director General (DG) of G.S.I, Kolkata when she was not included in the promotion order at Annexure A-1. She pointed out that her position in the seniority list was at serial no.63; but her name was not included whereas many of her juniors were in the list. She then received a letter in response from the office of the 2 nd respondent to the effect that she had been considered and recommended by the DPC held on 3.11.2015 for promotion to the post of Senior Geologist, as per the minutes of the DPC. The letter further stated as follows:-
3
".......... But, before issuing offer of promotion, vigilance clearance was obtained from Adm.Vigilance Section, CHQ, as per rule. In the said vigilance clearance, it was mentioned that the Director General, GSI had already approved initiation of disciplinary proceeding under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) rules, against Smt. Oleena C.S., and though charge-sheet was not issued, the disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against her.
Therefore, Smt. Oleena C.S, Geologist was not clear from vigilance angle as on the date of issue of offer of promotion, as such, offer of promotion was not issued to her."
A copy of the above letter dated 18.1.2016 issued by the office of the 2 nd respondent and given to the applicant is annexed as the impugned letter at Annexure A-4 in the O.A.
3. In response to the above developments the applicant submits that she made another request to the authorities seeking the details of the vigilance case pending against her. It is submitted by her that her promotion to Senior Geologist under the Recruitment Rules dated 29.9.2010 produced at Annexure A-6. As per these rules, it is laid down that Geologists with 4 years experience in the grade are eligible for promotion as Senior Geologist. The contention of the applicant is that the pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot be taken as a bar against effecting promotion in her case. She points out that even according to the respondents no Charge Sheet had been issued against her. There was only a proposal to hold a minor penalty inquiry 4 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules when the promotion order was issued. Hence, her non-inclusion in the promotion order is illegal. The applicant submits that the reason for the issue reaching this stage lay in a request made by the husband of the applicant for her posting in the regional headquarters at Trivandrum. This had caused annoyance to the 3rd respondent (DDG, G.S.I Kerala Sub Unit) resulting in the minor disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 being initiated against her. Later a charge sheet dated 30.12.2015 was also issued by the 2nd respondent, a copy of which is produced at Annexure A-7. The applicant submits that various minor allegations were clubbed together and Rule 16 charge sheet was then issued just when her promotion was being considered. The disciplinary proceedings have now ended with only a minor penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year without the effect of postponing her future increments of pay as per the penalty order dated 26.4.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent D.G, G.S.I produced at Annexure A-8.
4. It is submitted by the applicant that neither the Annexure A-7 Charge Sheet nor the Annexure A-8 Penalty Order can have any bearing on the recommendations of the DPC held in her case since on the relevant date of promotion, there was no Charge Sheet issued nor Rule 16 Inquiry proceedings pending against her. Hence the non- inclusion of her name in the promotion order is illegal. Only a proposal for a conduct of a minor disciplinary proceedings and Inquiry under Rule 16 was under
consideration. It is contended that a mere proposal for a Rule 16 Inquiry is not justification for enough denying a promotion cleared by the DPC. In fact, the 5 applicant submits that as per the Rules and instructions even the pendency of disciplinary proceedings is not a bar on effecting promotions. The currency of a penalty may postpone implementation of a promotion cleared by the DPC. However, in this case on the relevant date there was not even a charge sheet was issued. Hence, the Annexure A-1 promotion order to the extent of non-inclusion of her name is discriminatory. It is submitted that her name had been cleared by the DPC and she was found fit for promotion but it was only due to the lack of clearance from the vigilance unit that she was excluded. It is submitted that the instructions governing seniority and promotions are very clear regarding cases when DPC had cleared the selection. Once a case was cleared by the D.P.C there cannot be any loss of seniority or any other benefit. The dispute here has arisen only due to the date of giving effect to the recommendations of the DPC.
5. The applicant has reiterated the point that as far as the facts of this case are concerned, no charge sheet was pending as on the date of issuance of Annexure A-1 Order. Therefore, her non-inclusion in the promotion order is unjust and discriminatory. In view of this, she seeks the following relief:-
(i) To quash Annexure A1 and Annexure A4 to the extent of exclusion of applicant for promotion to the post of Sr.Geologist
(ii) To declare that applicant is entitled to be included in Annexure A1 promotion order as sr.Geologist with all consequential benefits, on being cleared by D.P.C
(iii) To direct the respondents to effect promotion of the applicant as Senior Geologist with effect from the date of promotion of her junior 6 incumbents in Annexure A1 with all consequential benefits including of arrears of pay.
(iv) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Court may deem fit to grant, and
(v) Grant the cost of this Original Application.
6. The respondents have filed a reply statement in which they have sought to meet the contentions of the applicant. At the outset, they submit that they had taken all proper care while considering the promotion of eligible Geologists to the post of Senior Geologist for the year 2015-16. Accordingly, after completion of all required official formalities, including vigilance clearance etc., a DPC meeting was held on 3.11.2015. The name of the applicant along with other officers were considered for promotion to the post of Senior Geologist, GSI for the year 2015-16 in the D.P.C. However, as per paragraph 7 of the guidelines for promotion contained in DoPT OM No.22011/4/91-Estt(A), dated 14.9.1992, produced at Annexure R1, a fresh vigilance clearance certificate has to be obtained before issuing the offer of promotion. Hence, in accordance with this instructions of DoP&T, the Establishment Section of the GSI sought vigilance clearance for issuing offer of promotion to all the recommended candidates of the D.P.C. However the Administrative Vigilance Section vide its letter dated 17.12.2015, produced at Annexure R-2 had, indicated that the applicant had not been cleared from vigilance angle as on that date. As such her name had to be treated as 'Deemed Sealed Cover' and no offer of promotion was issued to her. It is submitted that the Department was only following the official instructions and there is no fault on their side in this regard.
7
7. The respondents have also tried to bring out certain other what they presume to be complementing factors relating to the case of the applicant. This includes details about past misbehaviour of the applicant in terms of trying to avoid field duties and wanting to serve on Headquarters duty only. In her earlier posting at Karnataka as well as in Kerala it is alleged that she had tried to avoid field duty though she was liable to serve in any part of the Union of India and also do extensive field duty as and when required. This was a requisite of the post of Geologist in the GSI. The respondents have submitted in the reply statement that the applicant has been insisting for Headquarter based assignments instead of field assignments which is against the terms and conditions mentioned in her offer of appointment. The work of a Geologist requires lot of field assignments and this act of the applicant was against the prevailing rules.
8. The respondents have also brought to notice an O.M issued by the DoP&T relating to guidelines regarding grant of vigilance clearance to members of the Central Civil Services/Central Civil Posts. As per this O.M, No.11012/11/2007- Estt(A) dated 14th December, 2007, produced at Annexure R-3, vigilance clearance can be withheld if orders for instituting disciplinary proceeding against the officer have been issued by the Disciplinary Authority, provided that the charge sheet should be served within three months from the date of passing such order. In the case of the applicant the Disciplinary Authority had taken a decision to initiate disciplinary action on 16.12.2015. Hence, the name of the applicant was treated as under 'Deemed 8 Sealed Cover' on the basis of the Administrative Vigilance Section's letter dated 17.12.2015 at Annexure R-2. The promotion orders were also issued on the same date. Further, the Charge Memorandum was issued on the applicant on 30.12 2015. Hence, the stand taken by the department is in order and as per the instructions of the DoP&T. Later, after the issue of charge sheet and completion of the departmental proceedings, the applicant was awarded the penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year with effect from 1.7.2016, which would not have the effect of postponing her future increments of pay under Sub Rule No.(iv) of Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. This penalty was issued by the order dated 26.4.2016, produced at Annexure R-4. After this the applicant had preferred an appeal as per the Rules on 18.5.2016 addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Mines.
9. In sum it is accepted by the respondents that on the date of DPC i.e on 3.11.2015, there was no Charge Memorandum either pending or contemplated, against the applicant. As such her name was recommended by the D.P.C for promotion. However, as per the instructions of the DoP&T at Annexure R-1 dated 14.9.1992 vigilance clearance had to be sought again before issuing the actual order of promotion. At that stage the Annexure R-2 Vigilance Clearance status dated 17.12.2015 was obtained from the Administrative Vigilance Section which clearly established that her name was being under contemplation for initiation of departmental proceedings. As a result her case had to be treated as 'Deemed Sealed Cover' and no offer of promotion was issued. This was done as per the 9 rules/instructions. Later, the penalty order (at Annexure R-8) dated 26.04.2016 was issued after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide the Charge Memorandum dated 30.12.2015. As such, it is submitted that the stand and procedure taken by the organisation is in order and as per the rules.
10. The applicant has however contested the above contentions in her rejoinder. She submits that there is no justification to deny promotion to her once the DPC had cleared her case. The Annexure R-1 O.M of the DoP&T dated 14.9.1992 in paragraph 2 reads as follows:
" 2. At the time of consideration of the cases of Government servant for promotion, details of Government servant in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following category should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee.
(i) Government servants under suspension
(ii) Government servants in respect of whom a charge sheet
has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; and
(iii) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending. "
In addition, the clause 7 of the same O.M states that:-
"A government servant who is recommended for promotion by 10 the DPC but in whose case any of the circumstances mentioned in para 2 above arise after the recommendations of the DPC are received but before he is actually promoted, will be considered as if his case had been placed in a sealed cover by the DPC. He shall not be promoted until he is completely exonerated of the charges against him and the provisions contained in this O.M will be applicable in his case also."
11. The contention of the applicant is that none of the conditions which have been mentioned in paragraph 2 or the situation indicated at paragraph 7 of the O.M dated 14.9.1992 are attracted in her case. She was not under suspension on the date of issue of promotion order. Nor was any disciplinary proceedings pending by way of issue of a Charge Sheet. Nor was any prosecution for criminal prosecution pending against her. Hence, these conditions/situation not being met, there is no question that she should have been promoted along with others vide Annexure A-1 order. The reliance on the DoPT O.M of 14.9.1992 by the respondents is arbitrary and misplaced. Further, she has drawn attention to Annexure R-2 vigilance status report of the Administrative Vigilance Section of the GSI. As per the report it had been indicated as follows against her name:
" Complaint against Smt.Oleena C.S, Geologist, Geological Survey of India, SU: Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram regarding misconduct and misbehaviour with the senior officers was received froim the 11 Dy.Director General, GSI, Thiruvananthapuram along with PE report. On the basis of that the Director General, GSI has already approved for initiation of disciplinary proceeding under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) against Smt.Oleena C.S, Geologist, Geological Survey of India vide dated 16.12.2015. However, charge-sheet was not yet issued and her case is contemplated. Therefore, she is not clear from vigilance angle as on date. "
12. It is submitted by the applicant that the above vigilance status report at Annexure R-2 is dated 17.12.2015. According to her it is significant that the promotion order to Senior Geologist at Annexure A-1 is also dated 17.12.2015. It is submitted that she has learned that based on a request dated 15.12.2015 this letter was issued. This letter also makes it clear that the Director General had only 'approved for initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules' against her on 16.12.2015. However, no charge sheet had been issued by the relevant date of promotion i.e 17.12.2015. There appears to only have been 'an intention' to initiate disciplinary proceeding which is reflected in the Annexure R-2 report. Thus the report at Annexure R-2 is not sufficient justification for withholding promotion to her in terms of the DoP&T instructions at Annexure R-1. Further, no reference to any order that has been issued by the competent authority to the Establishment Section for proceedings against her. In other words, no order for initiating disciplinary proceedings was issued by the disciplinary authority against 12 the applicant as on 16.12.2015/17.12.2015. Had any such decision been taken, it would have been communicated to her.
13. In addition to the above points, the applicant submits that had the charges against her been actually serious the respondents could have suspended her contemplating disciplinary proceedings. In fact, she draws attention to the paragraph 2 (c)(iii) of Annexure R3 O.M No.11012/11/2007-Estt(A) dated 14.12.2007 of the DoP&T relating to guidelines regarding grant of vigilance clearance to members of the Central Civil Services/Central Civil Posts. Ironically this O.M has been produced by the respondents with the reply statement. The concerned paragraph 2(c)(iii) has clearly indicated that vigilance clearance shall not be withheld unless orders for instituting disciplinary proceedings against the applicant have been issued by the Disciplinary Authority provided that the charge sheet is served within three months from the date of passing such order. In her case, vigilance clearance should not have been withheld because, even as per the respondents, no specific order was issued or passed by the disciplinary authority for instituting the disciplinary proceedings on 16.12.2015. It is submitted that a mere decision taken in a file without formulating the same into an order is not sufficient in terms of Annexure R-3 O.M to deny grant of vigilance clearance. Further, in addition to this, no proof is furnished by the respondents to sutstantiate their contention of any decision or order taken by the disciplinary authority on 16.12.2015. It is therefore submitted that this contention was made as merely an attempt to defeat the claim of the applicant and has no merit. 13 In addition, the applicant has denied all the so called misconduct and misbehaviour alleged to have been committed by her earlier in Bangalore or in Kerala and pointed out that the respondents had not taken any action against her previously.
14. The respondents have furnished an additional reply statement in which they have submitted that the disciplinary authority had taken a 'decision' to initiate action on 16.12.2015. The name of the applicant was taken to be in 'deemed sealed cover' on the basis of the Annexure R-2 vigilance status report. The charge sheet was also issued within the specified 3 month period on 30.12.2015. As such, the contentions taken by the applicant in the rejoinder are not sustainable. Even if the applicant had not been kept under suspension on the date of issue of promotion order, a case pertaining to misconduct was contemplated. As such, the applicant cannot be found to be clear for promotion. The Annexure R-3 O.M of the DoP&T at paragraph 2(c)
(iii) stipulates that vigilance clearance can be withheld, if orders for instituting disciplinary proceedings against the officer have been issued by the disciplinary authority. The paragraph 2 (c)(iii) further only provides that the charge sheet should be issued within three months from passing such order. In the case of the applicant, the disciplinary authority had taken a decision to initiate disciplinary action against the applicant on 16.12.2015. The Charge Memorandum under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 was then issued on 30.12.2015. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in keeping the name of the applicant in the 'deemed sealed cover' as it was within the purview of the statutory provisions governing the subject. The point that is 14 made by the respondents is that it was contemplated and a decision was taken for initiating disciplinary proceedings on 16.12.2015 and so there was no vigilance clearance issued. The actual charge memorandum was later issued on 30.12.2015 but within the period of three months from the date of the decision taken to do so. Moreover, the respondents have indicated that her appeal against the Annexure A-8 penalty order has been turned down by the Appellate Authority vide Annexure R-5 order dated 20.10.2016. As such, the penalty imposed on her remains.
15. We have carefully examined the above contentions. The issue in its essence boils down to an interpretation of whether the relevant circulars/O.Ms of the DoPT's contemplate the situation in which a decision may have been taken perhaps in a file by the disciplinary authority to initiate proceedings against the employee. However, none of the three conditions as indicated in the paragraph (2) of the O.M at Annexure R-1 were actually existing on the date of the issue of the promotion order, i.e; the employee was not placed under suspension, no charge sheet in the disciplinary proceedings had been issued and no criminal charge was pending. In order to clarify the issue it is important to understand the sequence of events which are as follows:-
1. Department Promotion Committee conducted :- 3.11.2015
2. Decision taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings by the disciplinary authority D.G, GSI (as per respondents in the reply statement) :- 16.12.2015.
3. Letter of the Administrative Vigilance Section of G.S.I to the Establishment Division at Annexure R-2 stating no clearance from vigilance 15 angle of the applicant:- 17.12.2015.
4. Promotion order in the case of other employees to the post of Senior Geologist issued :- 17.12.2015
5. Charge sheet against the applicant for initiating disciplinary proceedings issued:- 30.12.2015
6. Penalty imposed on the applicant:- 26.4.2016
7. Appeal turned down in the proceedings :- 20.10.2016.
16. From the above sequence of events, it is be noted that the charge sheet was issued on 30.12.2015, a period of 13 days after the order of promotion in the case was issued on 17.12.2015. The respondents seek to explain this by stating that on 16.12.2015 a decision was taken by the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. This was communicated by the Vigilance Section to the Establishment Section, on 17.12.2015 which was the date of the promotion order was also issued. Hence, since the applicant was not cleared from the vigilance angle the deemed sealed cover procedure was followed. From a close reading of the DoP&T O.Ms or circulars that have been provided we cannot hold that a decision or intention to initiate disciplinary action in a file without any orders or instructions but alone a charge sheet being actually issued can be taken to be sufficient to stop the promotion of an employee. Even paragraph 7 of the Annexure R-1 states that if any of the three circumstances mentioned in paragraph 2 of the same circular arise after the recommendations of the DPC but before a person is actually promoted, only then can 16 he be placed in a sealed cover. The orders relating to the guidelines for grant of vigilance clearance produced at Annexure R-3 dated 14.12.2007 also indicate that the vigilance clearance cannot be withheld unless orders for instituting disciplinary proceedings against the officer have been issued by the disciplinary authority providing only that the charge sheet can be served within three months from the date of passing such order. As indicated by the applicant it has not been provided by the respondents that such orders of the disciplinary authority were actually issued/communicated officially before the promotion order was passed
17. In other words we hold that a decision which is taken in a file a day prior to the issue of promotion order cannot be taken as necessarily sufficient to stop the promotion of the applicant without some order being issued. The learned counsel for the applicant Shri.V.Sajith Kumar during oral submissions also brought to our notice the subsequent consolidated instructions of the DoP&T issued on 2.11.2012 by O.M No.22034/4/2012-Estt.(D). By this O.M the DoP&T had issued a comprehensive review of instructions on vigilance clearance for promotion. The opening paragraph of these instructions, after repeating the three conditions for denial of vigilance clearance brought out earlier, states that "withholding of vigilance clearance to a government servant who is not under suspension or who has not been issued a charge sheet and the disciplinary proceedings are pending or against whom prosecution for criminal charges is not pending may not be legally tenable in view of the procedure laid down in the aforesaid OMs'. The reference is to the OMs of the DoP&T of 17 25.10.2004 and of 14.9.1992 (produced in this O.A at Annexure R-1). Further, in the O.M of 02.11.2012 at paragraph 5, it is specifically clarified that "No promotion can be withheld merely on the basis of suspension or doubt or where the matter is under preliminary investigation and has not reached the stage of issue of charge sheet etc. If in the matter of corruption/dereliction of duty etc., there is a serious complaint and the matter is still under investigation, the government is within its right to suspend the official. In that case, the officer's case for promotion would automatically be required to be placed in the sealed cover." Further, in paragraph 6 it is stated that "During the stage of investigation prior to issue of charge sheet in disciplinary proceedings or prosecution, if the government is of the view that the charges are serious and the officer should not be promoted, it is open to the government to suspend the officer which will lead to the DPC recommendation to be kept in sealed cover." It is indicated in paragraph 6 further that " The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memorandum/charge sheet is issued or the officer is placed under suspension. The pendency of preliminary investigations prior to that stage is not sufficient to adopt sealed cover procedure."
18. In the above O.M of 02.11.2012 it is also indicates at paragraph 7 that even after recommendation of the DPC but before appointment of the officer if any of the three situations arise, the case is deemed to have been kept in sealed cover by virtue of para 7 of the O.M dated 14.9.1992 (produced at Annexure R-1). The circular concludes at paragraph 12 noting that "vigilance clearance cannot be denied on the 18 grounds of pending disciplinary/criminal/court case against a Government Servant, if the three conditions mentioned in paragraph 2 of this Department's O.M dated 14.09.1992 are not satisfied. The legally tenable and objective procedure in such cases would be to strengthen the administrative vigilance in each department and to provide for processing the disciplinary cases in a time bound manner. If the charges against a Government servant are grave enough and whom Government does not wish to promote, it is open to the Government to suspend such an officer and expedite the disciplinary proceedings."
19. The above consolidated instructions dated 02.11.2012 are thus quite clear that in this matter, the respondents should not have kept the case of the applicant under the 'deemed sealed cover' as they had done as none of the three conditions mentioned in paragraph 2 of the O.M dated 14.11.1992 were satisfied. It is clear that a broad decision or an intention to initiate disciplinary proceedings will not be sufficient. In fact it is clear that a Charge Sheet would have had to be issued in this case if the respondents were keen not to include the applicant in the order of promotion. This was not done in this case and, hence, there is no ground on which the respondents could have not promoted the applicant once the DPC had cleared her case. In addition the respondents have not brought any other case law/authority to support their position on how the deemed sealed cover was attracted in this case. Neither have they brought to our notice any subsequent circulars to the aforementioned O.M dated 2.11.2012 produced by the learned counsel for the applicant. This seems to be the 19 latest comprehensive review/instructions pertaining to vigilance clearance on promotion.
20. Hence, in view of the above, we are allowing the Original Application as well as granting the relief as prayed for by the applicant. The respondents are directed to issue a promotion order for the applicant as Senior Geologist to take effect from the date of promotion of her immediate juniors. Also she may be granted all consequential benefits in this regard. This may be done within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We are making no order as to costs.
(Dated this the 3rd day of March 2023)
(K.V.EAPEN) (JUSTICE K HARIPAL)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
sv
20
List of Annexures
Annexure A1 - A true copy of the orderNo..../A-32013/Sr. Geol./2015-
16/19A dated 17.12.2015 issued by the 1st respondent (relevant pages) Annexure A2- A true copy of the representation dated 21.12.2015 submitted by the applicant to the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A3- A true copy of the Gradation List as Geologist as on 12.05.2015. Annexure A4- A true copy of the Order No. A-32013/1/(Sr.Geol)/2015-16/19A dated 18.01.2016 issued from office of the 2nd respondent forwarded to the applicant dated 25.01.2016.
Annexure A5- A true copy of the representation dated 19.04.2016 submitted by the applicant to the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A6- A true copy of the relevant pages of Recruitment Rules dated 29.09.2010.
Annexure A7- A true copy of the charge sheet date 30.12.2015 issued by the 2 nd respondent.
Annexure A8- A true copy of the Order No. 9690/C-
nd
13013/590/OLS/Admn.Vig./2016 dated 26.04.2016 issued by the 2 respondent. Annexure R1- True copy of the DoPT O.M No.22011/4-91-Estt.(A) dated 14.09.92.
Annexure R2- True copy of the letter No. 29731C-13013/103/v. Clearance/ Admn.Vig./2010 dated 17.12.2015 obtained from Administrative Vigilance Section. Annexure R3- True copy of DoPT OM No. 11012/11/2007-Extt.(A) dated 14.12.2007.
Annexure R4- True copy of the order dated 26.04.2016.
Annexure R5- True copy of order F.No. 9/4/2016-MII dated 20.10.2016.
....