Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Amit Lodha vs N/A on 21 August, 2024
1
O.A. No.1130/2023
Item No.20
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH : NEW DELHI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1130/2023
Order reserved on 24.07.2024
Order pronounced on 21.08.2024
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Shri Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Shri Amit Lodha Age 48 years about,
S/o Dr. Narendra Lodha
Presently posted as Inspector General,
State Crime Records Bureau, Bihar
Grand Chandra Apartment, Frazor Road,
P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Patna (Bihar),
R/o Grand Chandra Apartment,
Frazor Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 800 001.
.... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S. Sunil)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through: The Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The State of Bihar,
Through: The Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna-800
001.
2
O.A. No.1130/2023
Item No.20
4. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Home, Government of Bihar,
Patna-800 001.
5. The Deputy Secretary,
Department of Home, Government of Bihar,
Patna-800 001.
6. The Director General of Police Government of Bihar,
Patna-800 001
... Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri Hanu Bhaskar for respondent Nos. 1 &
2, Shri Azmal Hayat Ahmandullah for respondent Nos. 3 to
6)
ORDER
Shri Justice Ranjit More:
By this Original Application (OA), the applicant has sought for quashing the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against him vide Memorandum dated 15.11.2022 by the Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna under the signature of Under Secretary, Department of Home, Bihar Patna. A further consequential relief is sought for in the OA seeking issuance of necessary directions to the Respondents for considering the Applicant for promotion to the post of 3 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), for which he is due since December 2022.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Applicant is a 1998 batch IPS Officer. The Applicant in the OA has also referred to the achievements earned during his service career. He has submitted that he was No. 1 in his batch in the Bihar cadre and one of the youngest officers of his batch. He was also one of few officers in his batch whose name was included in very first list by the Central Government after rigorous scrutiny of integrity, conduct and professionalism for being empanelled as Inspector General of Police. He was also awarded Police Medal for gallantry, President's Medal for meritorious service and Utkrisht Seva Medal. He is the most decorated officer of his batch. He was also awarded DGP's Commendation and numerous awards on several occasions by the Respondents (State of Bihar). The Applicant had served as DIG, BSF, Jaisalmer on 26.11.2013 and, later, IG, BSF, Rajasthan on 19.06.2019. The Applicant was posted as Inspector General of Police, Gaya from 14.01.2021 to 01.02.2022. The applicant is presently posted as 4 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 Inspector General of Police, State Crime Record Bureau, Bihar, Patna.
3. While posted as Inspector General of Police, State Crime Record Bureau, Bihar, Patna, disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the Applicant vide Memorandum dated 15.11.2022 (supra). The administrative and quasi-judicial decisions taken by the Applicant during his tenure as Inspector General of Police, Gaya forms the subject matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings. The Memorandum dated 15.11.2022, along with Articles of Charges and Statement of Imputation of Misbehaviour and Misconduct are issued in Hindi language. The applicant has placed on record the English translation of the Hindi documents.
4. The Memorandum dated 15.11.2022 (supra) contains following three charges:-
Article of Charge 1: Additional Director General of Police (Weaker Section) Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna has submitted a report after analyzing the complaints made to the department citing Crime Case No 334 of 2014 5 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 dated 18.10.2014, registered at Police Station, Bodhgaya. In the report submitted by the ADGP (Weaker Section), Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna it is stated to have revealed that the aforesaid Crime case No. 334/2014 dated 18.10.2014 was registered at the Police Station, Bodhgaya on the basis of the written complaint lodged by an erstwhile Revenue Official, Bodhgaya, Shri Chhottey Lal Paswan in connection with purchase of lands allotted by the Govt. of Bihar to the Scheduled Caste and Extreme Backward Class landless persons, by Shri Kitti Navani alias Kishore Navani.
The facts also revealed that eight purchases have been made through land mafias under allurement, threat and conspiracy. On the basis of the report submitted by ADGP (Weaker Section) CID, Bihar, Patna, following charges are apparent against the Applicant: -
(i) In a very serious matter of grabbing lands allotted by the Government to Scheduled Caste and Extreme Backward Class landless persons, the applicant had intentionally and deliberately ignored the legal provisions and irrefutable evidences. With an intention to extend unlawful gain to the 6 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 accused persons, the applicant vide Memorandum No.3036/Crime Br., dated 27.08.2021 in a hurry directed submission of Final Report of Facts in the Crime Case No.334/14 dated 18.10.2014, on which basis, the Investigating Officer submitted his Final Report of "Mistake of Facts" of the case in the court on 31.08.2021.
(ii) According to Section 3(l)(iv)/(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, transferring of land allotted to member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe is a punishable offence under aforementioned Act. It is clearly mentioned on all Licences/permits that "land of special conditional arrangement although shall be inheritable, but it shall not be transferable." Even if it is not mentioned on each Licence/Permit (Parwana) separately, even then in the light of Government Rules, this land is not transferrable. In order to save the accused persons, the applicant has misused his power by fixing responsibility on the poor and illiterate licence holders/vendors of their lands. In this sequence, attention was also diverted from main point of this crime 7 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 case. In the first Information Report, even if documentary evidence related to citizenship of accused Kitti Navani were absolutely clear, maximum and irrefutable criminal responsibility rests on him in the crime case. He with the help of his accomplices Krishan Kumar Pandey, Saryu Prasad etc. had intentionally and deliberately by hatching a conspiracy, adopted fear-allurement etc. tactics with the members of Scheduled Caste and Extreme Backward Class and grabbed their lands allotted by the Government for the welfare of landless persons. The applicant had ignored the true facts of the case and extended the advantage to unscrupulous, persecutors, powerful accused persons.
iii) In this case, previously Shri Nayyar Hasnain Khan, I.P.S., the then Inspector General of Police, Patna Range, Patna had vide his Memorandum No. 4801/Crime Br., dated 16.11.2018 analyzed the crime case whereby he had directed the Superintendent of Police (City) Gaya for conducting an enquiry on the points mentioned in Report-03 issued on 29.10.2018, besides conducting enquiry on other 12 points. In 8 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 Direction No.10 whereof, an order was also issued for constituting an S.I.T.
(iv) In this case, in the light of Bihar Police Headquarters Patna Memorandum No.6766/Ex.L. dated 18.09.2019, Shri Paras Nath, IPS, the then Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya had also analyzed the crime case and he had vide Memorandum No.2887/Crime. Br dated 25.10.2019 given a direction for conducting investigation on 13 points. Thus, in this case, the then Inspectors General of Police had previously found need of conducting investigation of this crime case on many points. .
(v) After the applicant's posting as Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya, Shri Amit Lodha, I.P.S, he had vide his Office Memorandum No.765/Crime Br, dated 03.03.2021, conducted analysis of the aforesaid crime case acting on the request made by the prime accused Kitti Navani and had directed for issuing special report in the said case.
9 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 (vi) The Applicant again vide his Office
Memorandum No.l818/Crime Br. dated 08.06.2021 himself conducted analysis of aforementioned crime case wherein he has mentioned that during investigation, it has come into light that neither the License holder nor his successor (heir) had ever the right to sell out the Licensed land. From aforementioned fact, it is clear that aforementioned facts were concealed in all documents by executants. They have received reasonable sale consideration of their respective lands and sold illegally to accused Kitti Navani alias Kishore Navani son of late Mohan Lal Navani, Chief Secretary, Buddhist Thai India Society Bodhgaya, which facts have been proved from the statements of executants of sale deeds and bank accounts of executants of sale deeds. The Superintendent of Police (City) Gaya will conduct an enquiry on all points mentioned in the analytical comments/notes and he will take a decision at his own level in the crime case and will submit his special report.
Special Report l1 has been issued without compliance of the directions mentioned in Analytical Comments given 10 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 by Superintendent of Police (City) Gaya, whereas according to the Enquiry Report dated 28.09.2022 submitted by Additional Director General of Police (Weaker Section), Crime Investigation Department, it has been found that "many such cases have come into light that Shri Kitti Navani alias Kishore Navani and his accomplices threatened and gave other temptations to the vendors of lands and they grabbed their lands without making payment of entire sale consideration or giving less sale consideration like Bedami Devi, Tapeshvvari Devi, Javva Devi, Virender -Ram, Surender Ram, Sushila Devi, Kaushalya Devi, Dharamender Majhi etc.
(vii) The Applicant, then Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya, after about two and half months, vide his Office Memorandum No.3036/Crime Br, dated 27.08.2021, himself conducted an analysis of the crime case and mentioned that after verification of the evidence and documents which has come on record in the investigations conducted so far, allegations leveled in this crime case are not proved against accused persons. Thus, the Investigating 11 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 Officer submitted his Final Report of 'Mistake of Fact' in aforesaid crime case. In the light of aforementioned order issued by the Inspector General of Police, Investigating Officer submitted Final Report of Mistake of Fact in this crime case on 31.08.2021. Aforementioned Analytical Report of the applicant is based on Special Report-l2 of this crime case. Special Report-I2 was issued by the Superintendent of Police (City) Gaya vide Memorandum No.33l6/2021 dated 12.07.2021 wherein it is mentioned that investigation of the crime case is underway. Further report will also be submitted.
Thus, it is clear from this fact that despite comments of subordinate officers of continuance of investigation of the crime case, the Applicant analyzed the crime case at his own level and took dubious decision in a haste without compliance of the directions given by previous Inspectors General of Police and issued the order for submitting Final Report of the crime case mentioning Mistake of Facts. Before taking his decision in the crime case, 12 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 he has not conducted thorough enquiry from the complainant of the crime case who is a Revenue official.
(viii) Official of Revenue Department of Bodhgaya had lodged complaint against accused of this crime case alleging that he misled poor, Scheduled Caste and Extreme Backward Class landless persons of the society and purchased their lands on very less sale consideration which was given them by the government. In this case, the applicant without completion of investigation thereby showing his dubious conduct, on the contrary, had made allegation on poor, illiterate, weaker section persons for selling out their lands by misleading the accused in the FIR Mr. Kitti Navani. In the light of irrefutable documentary evidences, decision taken by him in the Crime Case No.334/14 registered at Police Station Bodhgaya, his dubious conclusion appears to be unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law.
Article of Charge 2: The Applicant took decisions in Crime case No 197/21 registered at Police Station Magadh Medical which shows suspicious conduct of the applicant. The 13 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 decisions which have been taken in the crime have not been provided to the Bihar Police Headquarters. The decisions which have been taken without informing Bihar Police Headquarters are stated to be as under:-
(i) Without informing Bihar Police Headquarters and without permission of the Director General of Police, Bihar, the applicant vide his Office Memorandum No.3138/Crime Br., dated 02.09.2021 sent his recommendation for conducting investigation of the Crime case No.197/21 dated 20.07.2021 registered at police station Magadh Medical by Crime Investigation Department directly, whereas under section 43 of Bihar Police Act, 2007, this power is vested with the Director General of Police Bihar.
(ii) In the light of direction of Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna, the applicant conducted analysis of aforementioned crime case on 30.08.2021 and 01.09.2021.
He vide his Office Memorandum No.3138/Crime Br. dated 02.09.2021 issued Analytical Comments and sent the 14 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 aforementioned Report directly to the Crime Investigation Department without informing Bihar Police Headquarters. Article of Charge 3: During the tenure of posting in Gaya, the applicant had shown his suspicious conduct at large scale in various administrative matters and took alleged decisions and information of the same was not provided to the Bihar Police Headquarters. The instances are given hereunder:-
(i) In the light of Magadh Range Order No.216/21 dated 05.07.2021, Magadh Range Order No.204/21 read with Memorandum No.570/Crime Br dated 21.06.2021, transfer of 04 Policemen was cancelled on the ground that they are close to superannuation and orders were issued to continue their posting in their Home Town. In this sequence, on the basis of his superannuation, transfer of Hradayan and Ram (out from Home District - State, date of birth 16.01.1963) was cancelled from Nawada and he was transferred to Aurangabad on his request. As per rule, there is provision of posting in desired district prior to one year of superannuation and thus his request should have been 15 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 turned down. This order should have been issued by the Regional Transfer Committee, but due to his personal interest and showing dubious conduct, he took a decision contrary to aforementioned rule.
(ii) Magadh Range Order No.405/21 dated 3l.l2.202l- it has been informed separately in connection with total 35 Police officials of District Gaya and total 06 Police officials of District Jahanabad that their District period is also complete. Therefore, on the basis of supplementary list, the applicant, the then Inspector General of Police, Gaya transferred these 41 Police officials through the aforesaid Range Order. Meeting of Regional Council award was not convened for transferring such large number of Police officials, which is in contravention of section 10(1) of Police Act, 2007.
5. On receipt of the Memorandum dated 15.11.2022 (supra), the Applicant demanded from the Respondents the legible copy of case Diary of Crime Case No:334/14, copy of complaint of Golden Kumar, the basis on which the ADGP (Weaker Section) had conducted the inquiry, copy of order 16 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 on the basis of which the enquiry was initiated against the Applicant and the report based on which second and third charges have been leveled against the Applicant. Having not received any response, the Applicant proceeded to submit his defence reply vide Letter No.2l95 dated 22.12.2022. Finding no response to the defence reply for almost two months, the Applicant filed the present OA seeking quashing of the disciplinary proceedings.
6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant has made the following submission:-
6.1 Either Show Cause Notice was issued before issuing the Charge Memo, nor was any explanation sought from the Applicant before issuing the Charge Memo. 6.2 There is a clear violation of procedure prescribed by DOP&T OM dated 9th May 1995 which mandates that any proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings should be forwarded only after a decision has been taken at the level of Minister in charge of the department/ Ministry after 17 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 obtaining the preliminary explanation of the officer and after considering the same.
6.3 The Applicant promptly responded to the Charge Memo but the Respondent failed in taking any further action.
As the Applicant was due for his next promotion, he had no other alternative than to approach the Tribunal. 6.4 Respondent in the counter affidavit has clearly admitted that no opinion has received from DIG, Bihar despite reminders, on the defence reply submitted by the Applicant.
6.5 Failure to take action on the reply has resulted in delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings which has thereby resulted in delaying the Applicant's next promotion. 6.6 On the first charge that the applicant while being posted as Inspector General of Police, Magadh Gaya had vide his Office Memorandum No 765/Crime Branch dated 03.03.2021 conducted analysis of the crime case No 334/14 acting on the request made by the prime accused Kitti Navani and he took dubious decisions hastily without 18 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 compliance of the directions given by the previous Inspector General of Police and issued order for submitting closure report of the crime case stating the same to be 'mistake of facts' and had not conducted a thorough enquiry of the complaint on the crime case, it is the submission of the Applicant that:
(i) Crime case No 334/14 dated 18.10.2014 was registered at Bodhgaya on the basis of written complaint lodged by an erstwhile Revenue Official Bodhgaya, Shri Chhottey Lal Paswan in connection with purchase of lands allotted by the Govt. of Bihar to the Scheduled Caste and Extreme Backward Class landless persons, against Shri Kitti Navani.
(ii) In the said crime case, the Superintendent of Police, CID, Bihar Patna had submitted the report No. 10 on 12.03.2021 wherein it had been submitted that inclusion of Section 3(1)(iv) and 3(1)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was not proper. It is pertinent to mention that the Superintendent of Police (City) had clearly mentioned in his earlier report dated 19.09.2020 19 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 that the sections of SC/ST Act were not applicable in this case. This was much before the applicant had joined as IG Magadh.
(iii) The analysis of the crime case was conducted on the basis of available records by the applicant in his capacity as Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya. He had directed the Superintendent of Police (City) Gaya for conducting further investigation of the case vide Memorandum dated 03.03.2021. Besides this, original copy of the petition submitted by Shri Kitti Navani, the Superintendent of Police (City) Gaya was also directed to conduct point wise enquiry of the facts mentioned in the complaint and issue the report within 15 days. The Superintendent of Police (City) Gaya vide his office Memorandum dated 16.04.2021 issued Special Report 11 of the said Crime Case. Thereafter, Memorandum dated 08.06.2021 was issued by the applicant for conducting enquiry on all the points mentioned by Superintendent of Police (City) Gaya in his Special Report-11. The Superintendent of Police (City) Gaya, was also directed to 20 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 submit his further report on the crime case for taking a decision at his own level in the matter.
(iv) After the aforesaid order was issued by the applicant, the Superintendent of Police (City) Gaya, submitted his report dated 12.7.2021. The applicant thereafter thoroughly perused the entire documents in the presence of Shri Rakesh Kumar, IPS, Shri Ajay Prasad Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bodhgaya and Investigating Officer Shri Ram Vilas Singh and after analysis of the case based on facts, a direction was issued to submit the final report on 'mistake of facts' in the crime case which was pending for more than seven years. In the process of analysis, the applicant had perused the relevant records and sale deeds of the land sold and enquiry reports in connection with sub-divisional office and the citizenship of Kitti Navani was also perused. It was found that Kitti Navani had purchased the land in his capacity as Chief Secretary, Buddhist Thai India Society Bodhgaya. Before execution of the registered sale deed, the land vendors had stated that their land were 'Raiyat Land'. No objection was raised in connection with the ownership of 21 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 the said land by the administration despite seeking such information at the administrative level. There was no stay on the execution of the registered sale deed in the Registrar office. Landlords have clearly stated in their statements recorded under Section 16l Cr.PC that there lands were not leased or licensed land and they had sold their land after receiving reasonable sale consideration.
(v) It was also revealed that consequent to receiving the sale consideration by the vendors they had requested Shri Kitti Navani for drafting and preparing the sale deeds of the lands. It was further revealed that the sale deeds have not been prepared under any threat, coercion or temptation to the vendors. It was also found that passports have been issued in the name of Kitti Navani, holding Thai passports, earlier was a person of Indian origin holding Indian passport. Based on the thorough analyses and entire evidence of the case, it has been concluded that the crime case is not covered under Section 3(i)(iv)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Therefore, the allegation that the Applicant ordered for submission of 22 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 final report on mistaken facts hastily is absolutely false and incorrect.
(vi) It has also been revealed that Shri Kitti Navani along other officers of Buddhist Thai India Society Bodhgaya, had discussed with sellers of the land and an enquiry was also conducted in connection with the land. All persons have stated that it was their ancestral land and no one had ever stated that it was the land which had been allotted by the Bihar Govt. Before purchasing the aforesaid lands, Kitti Navani had also issued Legal Notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2013 to the District Collector, Gaya whereby he was asked as to whether the said lands were Govt. lands or not. He had also conducted enquiry from the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Bodhgaya whether the jamabandi of sellers were in existence or not but the information he had received were in favour of the sellers. Enquiry was also conducted from the Registrar Office, Gaya and it was found that there was no stay on the registration of the said lands.
23O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20
(vii) Since the sellers had not provided any information with regard to the lands whether it was given by the Bihar Govt., the purchaser could not be held responsible and liable for the lands purchased from the land owners.
(viii) The claim that the land was belonging to the Government or was a Parwana land was raised only after Shri Kitti Navani purchased the said land. Shri Kitti Navani had also filed a Title Suit bearing No. 81/14 against State of Bihar which is currently pending adjudication.
(ix) The allegation that the applicant had not conducted thorough enquiry with the Revenue officials before taking a decision is without any basis. The allegation that the lands were sold at throw away prices is also without any basis as the sale deed show that a good consideration was paid to sellers. All the payments were made to the Bank accounts of their family members.
(x) On the second charge that the applicant has taken dubious decision in the crime case No 197/21 registered at Police Station Magadh Medical, it is the submission of the 24 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 Applicant that a Memorandum dated 06.08.2021 was issued to the applicant by the Police Headquarters, Crime Investigation Department (Weaker Section Division) informing that a representation with regard to Magadh Police Station case No.197/2021 has been addressed to Crime Investigation Department by Shri Rakesh Ranjan, relative of the accused Shri Anish Kumar, wherein he has made serious allegations against the Police Sub--Inspector, Shri Abujar Husain Ansari and has stated that his nephew has been wrongly arrested in the Case No 197/2021 (supra) on 19.07.2021 for stopping demolition and illegal encroachments in Bihar Restaurant Kazichack. It is further alleged that CCTV cameras installed in the Restaurant were broken to destroy evidence and a false case has been made against Shri Anish Kumar. The Crime Investigation Department has thus annexed the representation of Shri Rakesh Ranjan along with the aforesaid Memorandum dated 06.08.2021 and specially directed the applicant to investigate the case and take necessary action in the matter. lt was further directed that the relevant report may be submitted to the Crime Investigation 25 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 Department regarding the actions taken after investigation. The applicant conducted enquiry of the charges leveled against Sub Inspector Abuzar Ansari with full dedication, transparency and professionalism in sequel to the enquiry, CCTV related to the incident was located and perused thoroughly. Mobile call details of the accused person of the incident and members of Police team were obtained. The FIR of the crime case and list of seizure, general diary of the Police Station was also perused. The charges against Sub- Inspector Abuzar Ansari were proved on the basis of thorough analysis of entire facts, CCTV footage, tower location etc. Only then, the Applicant came to the conclusion the innocent persons have be lodged in by registering a false FIR showing arms recovery in the crime case. The enquiry report was directly sent to ADGP, CID branch who had entrusted the Applicant to carry out the investigation with a clear direction to submit the report of the investigation. The copy of the report was not forwarded to the Police Headquarters only because the ADGP, CID Branch's letter dated 06.08.2021 directing investigation was not forwarded 26 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 to the Police Headquarters and, therefore, the report was directly sent to the ADG CID branch without forwarding a copy to the Police Headquarters. The applicant after investigation had suspended the Sub-Inspector Abuzar Ansari. He had thereafter represented to the Deputy Inspector General of "Police (Personnel) Bihar, Patna against the suspension order. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) Bihar, Patna on receipt of the representation had wrote to the Applicant enclosing the representation of Sub- Inspector Abuzar Ansari and had requested him to provide a copy of the report submitted to the ADGP CID Branch. The applicant thus forwarded the copy of the report to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) Bihar. However, there has been no comment on the report submitted by the applicant till date.
The applicant's recommending any action to be taken against the accused in crime case cannot be termed as misconduct. There is no violation of any Rule and it was not a matter of indiscipline. It was done purely as an official work without any personal motive. There is no rule, which 27 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 prohibits the Applicant from giving his recommendation in the matter after conducting investigation. His recommendation is not binding upon the superior officers or Bihar Police Headquarters. The applicant had sent the report directly to ADGP CID Branch as per directions contained in the letter dated 06.08.2021. Further, there is no violation of Section 43 of the Bihar Police Act, which reads as under: -
"43. Crime Investigation department The Crime Investigation department of the state shall initiate investigation of inter state, inter district and other offences of serious nature as notified by the government from time to time or specially handed over to it by the Director General of Police in accordance with the prescribed process and norms."
It is clearly stated in the aforesaid Section that Crime Investigation Department shall conduct inquiry/ investigation of a case entrusted by the Director General of Police in compliance of the laid down procedure and standards. There is no restriction in making recommendation and it is not mandatory that the CID Crime Branch has to act on said recommendation. It cannot be said that the applicant 28 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 has violated any provision of the Bihar Police Act by giving his recommendation.
(xi) On the third Charge that there is suspicious conduct at large scale in various administrative matters and alleged decisions and information of the which was not provided to the Bihar Police Headquarters, it is the submission of the Applicant that:
(i) Transfer Order of Sub Inspector Hradayan and Ram was cancelled and transferred to Aurangabad on his request as he was nearing superannuation. It is pertinent to mention here that transfer of above named Sub Inspector has been done in the light of Range Order No.216/2021, dated 05.07.2021. In this connection, a meeting of Magadh Regional Committee was held on 30.06.2021. Shri Aditya Kumar, the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya and Shri Rajiv Ranjan, the then Superintendent of Police, Arval had participated as Members. In the aforementioned meeting, on the basis of consent of all Members, transfer has been made on the basis of their representations related to family 29 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 problems/ medical ground/near period of superannuation/completion of range posting period of police officers/employees. When this order was issued by the Committee itself, then the question of Applicants personal interest does not arise therein. This charge is only a conjecture and absolutely biased.
(ii) Transfer of total 35 (thirty five) of District Gaya and total 6 (six) of District Jahanabad police officials was done vide Magadh Range Order No.405/2021, dated 21.12.2021 on the basis of their completing the period of district posting. An Order was issued vide Police Headquarters, Bihar, Patna Memorandum No.20/Go, dated 17.11.2021 to the effect that before 31 December, 2021 all police officers/employees of their subordinate districts who have completed 06 (six) years of their posting period be transferred in other regions of their Districts and order to this effect be issued within 10 days. It is pertinent to mention here that in the light of aforementioned order, vide Magadh Range Order No.388/2021, dated 14.12.2021, a total number of 1473 transfers were done on the basis of nomination which 30 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 were made available in the areas under Magadh district. Again vide Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya letter No.7l67/R.O. dated 28.12.2021 and Superintendent of Police, Jahanabad letter No.6182/R.O., dated 26.12.2021 provided a list of police officers/employees whose names were not included in transfer order issued previously. As per Police Headquarters, Bihar, Patna order (supra), direction was issued to the effect that the police officers/employees who have completed their posting district period of 06 years as on 01 January, 2022 not to be remain posted in the district. Under such situation, in the light of Standing Order issued by the Police Headquarters bearing No.3l5/2020, dated 18.05.2020, transfer of abovementioned 41 Police officers/employees of District Gaya and District Jahanabad was done under special circumstances without convening meeting of Regional Committee only to comply with the orders of the Police Headquarters.
It is the further submission of the Applicant that according to provisions contained in para no.15 of Police Order No.315/20 "there shall be no time limit for transfers on 31 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 administrative grounds. Competent Authority may issue transfer orders as per requirement". According to 15(A), lncharge, Deputy Inspector General of Police/Inspector General of Police/Additional Director General of Police, Director General of Police (Training) may transfer within their jurisdiction on the administrative grounds. Similarly, in reference to the Home Police Department letter No.1/M3-10- 5/83-H.P. 6353, dated 06.06.1983/letter No.422, dated 06.01.1984, State government has determined the responsibilities/powers and duties of Regional Inspector General of Police. According to para-9 of aforementioned, Regional Inspector General of Police shall transfer officers of the level of Inspector of Police and subordinate thereto within their range/jurisdiction and information of the same shall be provided to the Police Headquarters. It is also clarified that copies of all transfer orders made in the light of directions issued by the Police Headquarters, were forwarded to the Inspector General of Police (Headquarters), Bihar, Patna for information. But neither any comments/suggestion were forwarded in connection with 32 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 these transfers and nor these transfers were cancelled. Applicant had not intentionally or deliberately committed any act in these matters, rather entire Work has been done in good faith from administrative point of view in compliance with the directions of the Police Headquarters.
Therefore, even this Charge has no merit and cannot be termed as 'misconduct'
(xii) The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant thus having made the submission on charges further underscored that the actions taken by the Applicant, which forms the subject matter of the impugned disciplinary proceedings, are either administrative decisions or quasi- judicial decisions. All the administrative decisions taken by the applicant were well within his powers and he had not taken any decision without jurisdiction. He has not violated any procedure of law in taking the decisions. There is no allegation of violation of any statutory provision in the impugned Charge Memo. He has, in the process of taking administrative decisions, not disobeyed or flouted any of the 33 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 orders of his superiors. While taking decisions, he has not disregarded any principle of law. It cannot be said that the Applicant has taken decision based on irrelevant material. The applicant has used his discretionary powers after careful analysis of the evidence placed before him and that all the decisions were taken in accordance with law. The decision taken by the Applicant in his capacity as Inspector General of Police Gaya was open for review. If the superior authority found the applicant's reasoning to be not proper, they can review the said decisions. Reviewing the decisions does not mean to initiate disciplinary proceedings. If that be the case, any judgment passed by a court, if it is set aside in the appellate proceedings, disciplinary proceedings have to be necessarily initiated against the judicial officers, who had passed the original order. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings is warranted only in a case where the judgments/decisions have been taken after taking illegal gratification. In the present case, except for using the word 'corrupt', there is no factual allegation of illegal gratification. If a delinquent officer passes judicial orders, the same cannot 34 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 be treated as having passed by exceeding power by using corrupt motive. It is the further submission of the Applicant that he cannot be said to have contravened any of the Rules of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 mentioned in the Charge Memo. The Charge Memo has failed to explain as to how the applicant's actions would be construed as a violation of the specific Rules of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
(xiii) In support of the submission that the charges leveled against the Applicant cannot be held as 'misconduct', the learned Counsel for the Applicant has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: -
1) State of Punjab Vs. Ex-Constable Ram Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 54.
2) G.M. Appellate Authority, Bank of India Vs. Mohd. Nizamuddin, (2006) 7 SCC 410.
3) Union of India & Ors. Vs. J. Ahmed, (1979) 2 SCC
286. 35 O.A. No.1130/2023
Item No.20
4) Rasiklal Vaghji Bhai Patel Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, (1985) 2 SCC 35; and
5) A. L. Kalra Vs. Project and Equipment Corporation, (1984) 3 SCC 316.
7. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 to 6, opposing the O.A. submitted as under:
(i) The Disciplinary Authority considering the gravity of allegation opined to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant with respect to various unlawful, biased and dubious decision taken by the Application during his tenure as Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya. These included the decisions taken with respect to Bodhgaya P.S case No.334/2014 dated 18.10.14 and Magadh Medical College P.S Case No.197/2021. The allegations against the Applicant evinced indiscipline, dereliction of duty, arbitrariness, dubious conduct and misuse of post for personal interest, which is contrary to expected behaviour of a senior Police Officer.36
O.A. No.1130/2023
Item No.20
(ii) The Applicant submitted his defence reply vide Letter No:2195 dated 22.12.2022. On receipt of reply from the applicant, the Home Department vide letter dated 31.01.2023, requested the Director General of Police, Bihar to provide his opinion on the defense reply submitted by the applicant. A DO letter in this regard was also issued vide letter dated 13.04.2023 to the Director General of Police, Bihar to provide his opinion at the earliest. Later on, 4 reminder letters dated 14.06.23, 20.07.2023, 04.01.2024 and 24.02.2024 were sent to the Director General of Police, Bihar for expediting his opinion in the matter.
(iii) It is established principle of law that delinquent is bound to participate in the process of the enquiry and Charge Memo cannot be quashed in respect of the merit raised in OA regarding the allegation set out in the Charge Memo, a mere charge sheet or show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action because it does not amount to an adverse order which effect the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. In this context, the learned Counsel for Respondents in this 37 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 context also relied up the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India and others v Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357 and Secretary of Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565.
(iv) The reply of the Applicant is under consideration and in brief, the charges against the applicant are serious in nature and ought not be interfered at the present stage.
8. We have heard Shri S. Sunil, learned counsel for the Applicant, Shri Hanu Bhasker, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Shri Azrnat H. Amanullah. learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 6, and perused the documents placed in the O.A. during the hearing and have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides.
9. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the main issue which arises for our consideration is as to whether the charges framed in the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated vide Memorandurn dated 15.11.2022 makes out a case of 'misconduct', which would 38 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 justify initiation of disciplinary proceedings. In Union of India and others Vs. Upendra Singh (supra), the Apex Court has held that the Tribunal has the power to interfere at the charge sheet stage if in case the charges framed in disciplinary inquiry (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to law. In the light of the Apex Court judgment, we have proceeded to look into each charge as to whether the charges made against the Applicant would fall within the term 'misconduct' or not.
10. On a careful perusal of the first charge, we find that said charge relates to administrative or quasi-judicial decisions taken in the Crime Case No:334/14 during his tenure as Inspector General of Police, Magadh Gaya. The Applicant had conducted analysis of the crime case No. 334/14 on the request made by the prime accused Kitti Navani. The main charge against the Applicant is that after conducting analysis of the Crime Case, he took dubious decisions hastily without compliance of the directions given 39 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 by the previous Inspector General of Police and issued order for submitting closure report of the crime case stating the same to be 'mistake of facts'. Further, charge is that his closure report has benefited the accused. It is further alleged that for saving the accused, the Applicant has misused his power. He has fixed the responsibility on the poor and illiterate land owners and has saved the accused. He has diverted the attention from the main Crime Case. From the submissions made before us, we find that the Crime case No. 334/14 dated 18.10.2014 was registered at Bodhgaya on the basis of written complaint lodged by an erstwhile Revenue Official Bodhgaya Shri Chhottey Lal Paswan in connection with purchase of lands allotted by the Govt. of Bihar to the Scheduled Caste and Extreme Backward Class landless persons, against Shri Kitti Navani. The applicant analysed the said crime case and directed the Superintendent of Police (City) Gaya for conducting further investigation of the case. A report thereafter came to be filed by the Superintendent of Police (City) Gaya. The Applicant thus directed Superintendent of Police (City) Gaya to conduct an enquiry 40 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 on all the points mentioned in his report. His basis for directing the filing of closure report were following facts which got revealed from the report of the Superintendent of Police (City) Gaya:
(i) Before execution of the registered sale deed, the land vendors had stated that their land were 'Raiyat Land'.
ii) No objection was raised in connection with the ownership of the said land by the administration despite seeking such information at the administrative level.
iii) There was no stay on the execution of the registered sale deed in the Registrar office.
(iv) Landlords have clearly stated in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC that there lands were not leased or licensed land and they had sold their land after receiving reasonable sale consideration.
(v) Shri Kitti Navani along other officers of Buddhist Thai India Society Bodhgaya, had discussed with sellers of the land and an enquiry was also conducted in connection with the land.41
O.A. No.1130/2023
Item No.20
(vi) All persons have stated that it was their ancestral land and no one had ever stated that it was the land which had been allotted by the Bihar Govt.
(vii) Before purchasing the aforesaid lands, Kitti Navani had also issued Legal Notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2013 to the District Collector, Gaya whereby he was asked as to whether the said lands were Govt. lands or not.
(viii) Enquiry with the Registrar Office, Gaya revealed that that there was no stay on the registration of the said lands.
(ix) Since the sellers had not provided any information with regard to the lands whether it was given by the Bihar Govt, the purchaser could not be held responsible and liable for the lands purchased from the land owners.
(x) The claim that the land was belonging to the Government or was a Parwana land was raised only after Shri Kitti Navani purchased the said land. 42 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20
(xi) Shri Kitti Navani had also filed a Title Suit bearing No. 81/14 against State of Bihar which is currently pending adjudication.
(xii) Consequent to receiving the sale consideration, the vendors had requested Sh Kitti Navani for drafting and preparing the sale deeds of the lands.
(xiii) Sale deeds have not been prepared under any threat, coercion or temptation to the vendors.
11. We are not commenting anything on the aforesaid factual conclusions drawn by the Applicant in the course of his enquiry. Erroneous conclusions can only be an error of judgment which as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India and Others Vs. J. Ahmed, (1979) 2 SCC 286 shall not constitute 'misconduct'. Now coming to the specific charge that the Applicant directed filing of the closure report in a dubious manner hastily, we do not find anything in the Charge Memo to substantiate the dubious conduct of the Applicant. We are unable to understand that how can the filing of a closure report hastily 43 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 be an act of misconduct. On the other charge that the Applicant has deliberately ignored the legal provisions and irrefutable evidences, we find that the Charge Memo has not clearly spelled out as which legal provisions have been ignored while conducting the analysis of the Crime Case. We also find that the Applicant has while conducting analysis of the case, has taken due cognizance of the report of Superintendent of Police, Gaya wherein he has clearly opined that the inclusion of Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act) was not proper.
12. There is nothing to show that the Applicant has been benefited in any manner by filing a closure report. There is no allegation of taking of illegal gratification from the accused. The Applicant's decision to fix the responsibility on the seller instead of buyer is based on his own conclusions drawn on the basis of the investigation. As stated by us herein above, such conclusion even if erroneous cannot be termed as 'misconduct'. What has to be seen is that whether there is any rationale behind the conclusions drawn in the Crime Case. It is not even the case of the Respondents that 44 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 the Applicant had no power to direct filing of closure report. There is no allegation that the Applicant has failed to follow any standing instructions. Merely because the previous Inspector General of Police had found that there is a need for investigation on many points, it cannot be automatically presumed that the Applicant has not taken into account the said points while taking a decision at his end. What we find from the record is that the Applicant instead of blindly following the comments of the previous Inspectors General has carried out an independent investigation of the crime case and came to his own conclusion. The conduct of the Applicant in filing the closure report cannot be termed as dubious conduct or an act of indiscipline or dereliction of duty and misuse of his position. Even if the closure report is filed by the Applicant, the authorities above can always review the same and direct further investigation in the matter. We also find from the record that the Applicant has filed a closure report in a Crime Case which was pending since 2014. Therefore, in our considered view, none of the allegations in the first charge could be held as act of 45 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 'misconduct' as per laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India and Others v J. Ahmed (supra).
13. Coming to the second charge, we find that a Memorandum dated 06.08.2021 was to the Applicant by the Police Headquarters, Crime Investigation Department (Weaker Section Division) informing that a representation with regard to Magadh Police Station case No. 197/2021 has been addressed to Crime Investigation Department by Shri Rakesh Ranjan, relative of the accused Shri Anish Kumar, wherein he has made serious allegations against the Police Sub-Inspector, Shjri Abujar Husain Ansari and has stated that his nephew has been wrongly arrested in the Case No. 197/2021 (supra) on l9.07.202l for stopping demolition and illegal encroachments in Bihar Restaurant, Kazichack. We have perused the Memorandum dated 06.08.2021. In the said Memorandum, it is expressly directed that the applicant should investigate the case and take necessary action in the matter. It was further directed in the said Memorandum that the relevant report may be submitted to the Crime Investigation Department regarding the actions taken after 46 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 investigation. The applicant thus conducted an enquiry on the charges made against Sub Inspector Abuzar Ansari. In the process of enquiry, the Applicant made a detailed enquiry of the CCTV related to the incident, Mobile call details of the accused person of the incident and members of Police team were obtained. The FIR of the crime case and list of seizure, general diary of the Police Station was also perused. The Applicant based on his enquiry came to the conclusion that a false FIR showing arms recovery has been registered. Details of the enquiry and the actions taken pursuant to the enquiry were sent to ADGP, CID Branch. The Applicant has done exactly what has been directed to be done by the ADGP, CID Branch. We also find justification in the submission of the Applicant that the copy of the report was not sent to the Police Headquarter as it was the ADGP, CID Branch who had directed the Applicant to send the report of investigation. The report of investigation was thus sent only to the ADGP, CID Branch. Even though it is the allegation against the Applicant that a copy of the report was not sent to Police Headquarters, we find from the submission 47 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 of the Applicant that it was later on forwarded to Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) Bihar but no comments have been made on the report submitted by the Applicant. We do not find any irregularity or indiscipline on the part of the Applicant recommending any action to be taken against the accused. No provision has been mentioned in the Charge Memo which restricts a Inspector General of Police from giving his recommendation in a particular case. Recommendation is not binding upon the higher authority. The higher authority independently examined the case instead of acting on the recommendation of the Applicant. We have also perused Section 43 of the Bihar Police Act which is said to have been violated by the Applicant. Section 43 neither restricts the Applicant to carry out an enquiry on the directions of the ADGP, CID Branch, nor does it restrict the applicant from giving his recommendation. No personal motive could be attributed to the Applicant. We do not find any irregularity in work or ignorance of duties and incompetence on the part of the Applicant in taking aforesaid actions. There is no allegation in the Charge Memo that he 48 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 had sent the report directly for any personal gain. In fact, had the Applicant failed to follow the instruction from the Crime Investigation Department, it would have been act of indiscipline, gross irregularity in work and incompetence. Therefore, in our considered view none of the allegations in the second charge shall constitute 'misconduct'.
14. Coming to the third Charge that there is suspicious conduct at large scale in various administrative matters and alleged decisions and information of which was not provided to the Bihar Police Headquarters, we find from the submissions of the Applicant that the Transfer Order of Sub Inspector Hradayan and Ram was cancelled and was transferred to Aurangabad in the light of Range Order No.2l6/2021 dated 05.07.2021. We also find that the decision to transfer Inspector Hradayan and Ram was not Applicant's individual decision. For this, a meeting of Magadh Regional Committee was held on 30.06.2021 wherein Shri Aditya Kumar, the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya and Shri Rajiv Ranjan, the then Superintendent of Police, Arval, had participated as Members; and in the said meeting based 49 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 on the consent of all the Members of the Committee, orders for transfer were issued taking into consideration various factors, such as medical ground, family problems, etc. Therefore, we do find any fault with Applicant for taking a decision to transfer Hradayan and Ram to Aurangabad. The allegation of dubious conduct is baseless. No charge of 'misconduct' is made out against the Applicant.
15. Further, with regard to the 41 Police officials who were transferred, we find that the Applicant had, before transferring the said Police officials, issued transfer orders to 1473 Police Officials vide Magadh Range Order No.388/2021 dated 14.12.2021. These 41 police officials were those who have been left out in the earlier list of transfer and were thereafter included in the list on being pointed out by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya vide letter No.7167/R.O dated 28.12.2021. As there was already a Standing Order issued by the Police Headquarters that the Police officers/employees who had completed six years of posting in the District has to be necessarily transferred, the Applicant transferred the above-mentioned aforesaid 41 50 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 Police officials without convening the meeting of Regional Committee. It is not the case of the Respondents that the Applicant did not have the power to transfer the aforesaid 41 Police officials. The Applicant in their submission has also referred to Police Orders and letters of the Home Department, which empowers the Applicant to transfer the Police Officials. On a perusal of the said Police Order, we find that the Applicant has not acted beyond his power. We do not find anything to hold that the applicant has transferred the aforesaid Police Officers for his personal gain. It is not that the applicant had only transferred 41 officials but he has before transferring the said Police Officials transferred about 1473 Police Officials. We do not find any allegation pertaining to those transfers. Moreover, we find from the submission that all the transfer orders issued by the Applicant were forwarded to the Inspector General of Police (Headquarters), Bihar, Patna seeking their comments and suggestion but none of the said orders were cancelled. Therefore, we do not find any irregularity or dubious conduct in issuing the transfer orders to 41 Police Officers. It 51 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 was purely an administrative order issued within the powers of the Applicant. No charge of 'misconduct' could be made out against the Applicant.
16. After going through each Article of charges, we find that Applicant has duly discharged his duties entrusted to him. In the decision-making process, he has not disregarded any provisions of law. We are not going into the correctness of decisions taken by the Applicant. The decision may be incorrect but for that, there is always a remedy of review or appeal. What has to be seen is as to whether there is a glaring irregularity in taking the decision or such a decision has given undue favour to any person. There is nothing to show that the Applicant has acted dishonestly. We find there is no material, which would show that the applicant has failed to maintain ethical standards. We also fail to find anything prima facie in the Charge Memo, which shows that the applicant has failed in promoting the principles of merit, fairness and impartiality in the discharge of the duties. The applicant in discharge of his duties has also shown accountability and transparency. There is nothing on 52 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 record to show that the applicant has refrained from doing anything which was an established practice. The allegations in the charge memo do not even remotely suggest that the Applicant has failed to maintain highest degree of professionalism and dedication to the best of his abilities. We do not find any element of 'misconduct' even with regard to this charge.
17. Explaining further the concept of 'misconduct' in GM. Appellate Authority, Bank of India Vs. Mohd. Nizamuddin, (2006) 7 SCC 410, the Apex Court has held that that gravity of misconduct has to be measured in terms of the nature of misconduct. In Rasiklal Vaghji Bhai Patel (supra), it has been held that either in the certified standing order or in the service regulations an act or omission is prescribed as misconduct, and it is not open to the employer to fish out some conduct as misconduct and would not be comprehended in any of the enumerated misconduct. In A. L. Kalra Vs. Project and Equipment Corporation, (1984) 3 SCC 316, it has been held that acts of misconduct must be precisely and specifically stated in the rules or standing 53 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 orders and cannot be left to be interpreted ex post facto by the management.
18. Further, we also note that there are no past instances where the Applicant's conduct has been dubious. On the contrary, we find that his service career has been commendable. In the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court and after giving our careful consideration to each charges, we find that none of the charges would be construed as act of 'misconduct'.
19. We also find force in the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant that there has been a violation of DOP&T OM dated 09.05.1995. Respondents in response to O.A. have nowhere stated that the procedures mandated in the said OM have been duly followed by seeking a preliminary explanation from the Applicant.
20. As regards the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that as per the law laid down in Union of India and others Vs Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357 and Secretary of Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. 54 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 Prabash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565, the Tribunal cannot interfere at the charge sheet stage, we find that the Apex Court though has restricted the Tribunal from interfering at the Charge Sheet stage, has also held that the Tribunal can interfere at the charge sheet stage if the charges are of nature which do not constitute 'misconduct'.
21. Though there is also a submission made on behalf of the Applicant that the disciplinary proceedings are based on malicious grounds and a deliberate attempt to delay the promotion of the Applicant, we are not delving on the said issue. But it is true that the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings has considerably delayed the Applicant's promotion. He, therefore, cannot be faulted for approaching the Court seeking his legal remedies challenging the Charge Memo.
22. In view of our findings above, we quash and set aside the Memorandum dated 15.11.2022. As we find that because of the pending disciplinary proceedings, the Applicant had missed his promotion to the post of ADGP 55 O.A. No.1130/2023 Item No.20 along with his batch mates, by way of consequential relief, we direct the Respondents No.3 to 6 to open the sealed cover and give effect to recommendations by giving promotion to the Applicant to the post of ADGP with effect from the date his batch mates got their promotion if he is found fit otherwise. This exercise may be completed as soon as possible but not later than two weeks from date on which the copy of judgment is made available to the Respondents.
23. The OA is allowed in aforesaid terms. There will be no order as to costs.
( Sanjeeva Kumar ) ( Justice Ranjit More ) Member (A) Chairman /DM/