Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Nitin Pratap Singh vs Debt Recovery Tribunal on 1 August, 2023
1 (OA No. 060/886/2020)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Reserved on: 20.07.2023
Pronounced on: 01.08.2023
OA No. 060/886/2020
HON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Nitin Pratap Singh son of Major (Sh.) Vir Pratap Singh, age 43 years,
presently working as Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Sector 17-
A, Chandigarh-160017.
.........Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. D.R. Sharma alongwith Sh. DhIraj
Chawla)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Financial Services, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, 10,
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.
2. Sh. Sanjeev Mago, Presiding Officer, DRT-III Holding Additional
Charge of Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Sector 17,
Chandigarh-160017.
3. Presiding Officer, DRT-III Holding Additional Charge of Presiding
Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
4. Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Financial Services, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, 10,
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.
.........Respondents
(BY Advocate: Sh. V.K. Arya)
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985 against Show Cause Notice issued vide letter No. 08/12/2020-DRT dated 20.10.2020 prepared in 2 (OA No. 060/886/2020) back date and received by the applicant from the office of DRT II on 02.11.2020 which has been issued by the incompetent authority and also without applying its independent mind based on letter dated 08.10.2020 issued by respondent No. 2 whereby it has already been decided to repatriate the applicant (Annexure A-1 colly).
2. The applicant has sought the following relief(s):-
"8(ii) That Annexure A-1 dated 20.10.2020 be quashed and set aside being issued by the incompetent authority and also against law.
(iii) It be further declared that the applicant is entitled to continue for four years as per terms and conditions of his appointment and the action of the respondents repatriating the applicant be declared as illegal the same being based on malafide of respondents No. 2 &
3 and also contrary to OM dated 17.06.2010."
3. The facts as projected by the applicant is that the applicant is Law Graduate and has practiced as an Advocate in District Courts Patiala from 04.08.2003 to 20.08.2008. On 21.08.2008, the applicant was selected as Junior Parliamentary Interpreter, Group A Service by the Joint Recruitment Cell of the Parliament. On 21.08.2011, the applicant was promoted as Parliamentary Interpreter. On 21.08.2014, the applicant was promoted as Deputy Director/Joint Director. On 21.08.2017, the applicant was promoted as Additional Director.
4. On 01.05.2019 (Annexure-2), the respondent No. 1 issued notice inviting applications for the post of Registrar in DRT 3 (OA No. 060/886/2020) II. Being fully eligible, applicant for the same through proper channel. Applicant was interviewed by the High Power Selection Committee constituted by Respondent No. 1 alongwith other competitors and was selected as Registrar on 10.10.2019 (Annexure A-4). On 17.12.2019 (Annexure A-
7), the applicant joined as Registrar, DRT-II, Chandigarh and continued to perform duties as per Rule 22 & 23 of the DRT Rules, 1993. The applicant continued to work under the then Presiding Officer Sh. Akshay Bipin who superannuated in January, 2020 on completion of his tenure. The additional charge of the post of PO, DRT-II was given to the respondent No. 2. There was no complaint whatsoever regarding the powers, duties and responsibilities being performed by the applicant as Registrar as per statute.
5. It is averred by the applicant that on 05/07.09.2020 (Annexure A-8), the respondent No. 3 who is subordinate to the applicant made a complaint to respondent No. 2 that the files related to the medical bills are not being cleared by the applicant. Applicant was called to give his detailed report within 7 days. The applicant submitted his detailed report dated 17.09.2020 (Annexure A-9) and justified his action.
6. It is alleged by the applicant that respondent No. 2 in connivance with Assistant Registrar, passed the order dated 16.10.2020 by which all statutory powers of Registrar conferred by an Act of Parliament have been withdrawn by 4 (OA No. 060/886/2020) the respondent No. 2 and also referred his case to respondent No. 1 for repatriation. Even the password of the official mail of the applicant (Registrar) was changed so that the applicant could not have access to the official mail even for his routine official work.
7. The applicant alleges that his work and conduct remained satisfactory throughout his service before he joined DRT. He suffered because he had not been able to toe in line with the action of respondent No. 2 .
8. That the applicant had already filed OA No. 060/791/2020 in this Tribunal challenging letters dated 16.10.2020 and 08.10.2020. In that OA, vide this Tribunal's order dated 21.10.2020, the respondents were directed to maintain status quo qua the posting of the applicant as Registrar in DRT-II and this status quo order is continuing till now.
9. Applicant is aggrieved by a Show Cause Notice dated 20.10.2020 issued during the pendency of OA No. 060/791/2020 in back date and served upon the applicant on 02.11.2020. This Show Cause Notice has been issued without application of mind as the same has been issued by an officer who is incompetent as he is one step junior to the applicant. This Show Cause Notice does not give any reasoning as to how the applicant is incompetent who is having outstanding record of service. Hence this OA. 5 (OA No. 060/886/2020)
10. Applicant has also filed MAs No. 1417/2020 and 1105/2021 seeking restraining the respondent No. 2 from issuing unwarranted/concocted memos against the original record and writing his APARs.
11. To agitate his point of view further, the applicant has relied upon the following judgements:-
(i) M/s Siemens Limited Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others reported as 2006
AIR SCW 6380
(ii) Dr. V.T. Prabhakaran (WP) (C) No. 2292/2010
decided on 26.07.2010
(iii) Oryx Fisheries (P) Limited Vs. Union of India reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427
(iv) OA No. 23/PB/2009 decided on 18.03.2010 titled A.K. Narula Vs. KVS.
12. The respondents No. 1 & 4 have filed a short reply wherein they submitted that the respondent No. 1 i.e. the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India (DFS) looks after the administration and functioning of Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) which have been established by the Central Government under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act, 1993) (erstwhile Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Acts, 1993 (RDDBFI Act, 1993) for 6 (OA No. 060/886/2020) recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions in cases where the amount of debt due is Rs. 20 Lakh or more.
13. The respondents No. 1 & 4 further submit that Under Secretary to Government of India is the in charge in the Branch of the Ministry consisting of two or more sections and in respect thereto exercise control both in regard to the dispatch of business and maintenance of discipline. As Branch Officer, he disposes of as many cases as possible at his own level after taking approval of appropriate higher authorities. Considering the seriousness of allegation reported by Respondent No. 3, i.e. Presiding Officer, DRT-II Chandigarh against the applicant that the applicant is incompetent to handle the administration and had been lacking in the knowledge of rules and regulations of administration which causes hindrance in functioning of DRT, accordingly, with the approval of Competent Authority, respondent No. 4 had issued Show Cause Notice to the applicant.
14. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
15. Regarding question whether the applicant is entitled to continue on the post of Registrar, DRT II, Chandigarh as per terms and conditions of his appointment and whether he can be repatriated without following the statutory Rules/OM 7 (OA No. 060/886/2020) dated 17.06.2010, Paragraph No. 9 of OM dated 17.06.2010 reads as under:-
"9. Premature reversion of deputationist to parent cadre Normally, when an employee is appointed on deputation/foreign service, his services are placed at the disposal of the parent Ministry/Department at the end of the tenure. However, as and when a situation arises for premature reversion to the parent cadre of the deputationist, his services could be so returned after giving an advance notice of at least three months to the lending Ministry/Department and the employee concerned."
16. We have also gone through the issue regarding incompetency of the officer issuing Show Cause Notice. It is seen that the Under Secretary to the Government of India has issued the Show Cause Notice after taking approval from the higher competent authorities.
17. It is a well settled proposition of law that a deputationist has no vested right to continue in the borrowing department. Moreover, the applicant has almost completed his tenure as Registrar on deputation in the DRT-II Chandigarh by virtue of enjoying status quo granted in his favour vide order dated 21.10.2020 granted in OA No. 791/2020 and not much is left to be granted to him at this stage.
18. Moreover, vide our order of even date in OA No. 791/2020, the stay order dated 21.10.2020 already stands vacated. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the authenticity of the Show Cause Notice. However, the applicant shall be at liberty to respond to Show Cause Notice Accordingly, we 8 (OA No. 060/886/2020) do not find any merit in the present OA and the same is dismissed.
19. There shall be no order so as to costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*