Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sanjay Khanna S/O M. L. Khanna vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through Chief ... on 1 August, 2006
ORDER
V.K. Majotra, Vice-Chairman (A)
1. Through this OA applicant has challenged penalty of censure awarded in disciplinary proceedings against him. The learned Counsel of applicant pointed out that while the enquiry officer did not find applicant guilty of the alleged misconduct, the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the enquiry officer served dissenting note as also the enquiry report upon applicant vide Annexure A-3 dated 27.2.2004. The disciplinary authority after considering applicant's representation in response to Annexure A-3, vide Annexure A-6 dated 12.4.2004 imposed upon applicant penalty of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by three stages for three years with further direction that he would not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of this period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. Vide impugned orders Annexure A-1 dated 7.6.2006 the appellate authority after giving a personal hearing to applicant decided his appeal reducing the punishment to minor penalty of censure.
2. The learned Counsel of applicant contended that applicant was holding the post of UDC in the Vigilance Branch of the Directorate. He was not in charge of the enquiry records. He had not received the vigilance enquiry records relating to Y.P.Chaoudhary, ICD. As such, the enquiry officer had held applicant not guilty of the alleged misconduct. While the disciplinary authority wrongly disagreed with the enquiry officer, the orders of the appellate authority are not reasoned and speaking orders.
3. It is observed from the material before us that applicant had earlier approached this Court twice over - first through OA No. 1904/2004 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 6.8.2004; and secondly, through OA No. 447/2006 which was disposed of with a direction to respondent authorities to dispose of applicant's statutory appeal within a period of three months. Annexure A-1 dated 7.6.2006 are orders of the appellate authority in pursuance of Tribunals aforesaid directions.
4. As per Annexure A-2 dated 27.11.2002, the following charge was levelled against applicant:
The said Shri Sanjay Khanna, while working as UDC in the Vigilance Branch of this Dte. had been dealing with the vigilance case of Shri Y. P. Choudhary, ICD : Case file No. Estt. 25(1)/Vig./97-CDHG, and was supposed to maintain all the original related documents confidentially and safely in his personal custody.
But the said Shri Sanjay Khanna has failed to maintain the original documents, viz., daily payment cash book (petty cash book), bills and statement of details (classification) of cash handed over by Shri Y.P. Choudhary, ICD on his transfer to his successor (the same was available in petty cash book). But these documents are now not available with him.
Thus the said Shri Sanjay Khanna, UDC has committed gross negligence in the discharge of his official duties, failed to maintain absolute integrity and violated provisions of Rule 3 I, (i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
5. No doubt the enquiry officer did not find applicant guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. Vide Annexure A-3 dated 27.2.2004 the disciplinary authority disagreed with the enquiry officer and communicated the reasons of disagreement with the enquiry report to applicant. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the enquiry officer stating as follows:
3. The undersigned, being the disciplinary Authority, does not agree with the Enquiry Report on the ground that the demand of documents by Shri Y.P. Choudhary, ICD against whom a departmental enquiry is pending has nothing to do with the C.O. A chargesheet is prepared on the basis of records/facts in the custody of the Vigilance Branch./ When the chargesheet against Shri Y.P. Choudhary, ICD was prepared, the concerned record should have been in the custody of the Vigilance Branch. The undersigned also does not agree with the fact that the P.O. has failed to produce any proof to support the allegation/charges levelled against the C.O. and that the C.O. has not been found guilty of a misconduct and unbecoming of a Govt. Servant and that no case is made out against the C.O.
6. The disciplinary authority found that applicant had lost confidential documents relating to the enquiry against Shri Y.P. Choudhary, ICD on a serious matter involving corruption and as such awarded the aforesaid major penalty upon applicant. The appellate authority has passed detailed and reasoned orders after granting a personal hearing to applicant. He seems to have taken a lenient view of the matter and awarded the minor-most penalty of censure upon applicant. We do not find any infirmity in the orders of respondents in awarding the penalty of censure upon applicant in disciplinary proceedings against him in which he had been charged for having lost confidential documents relating to a vigilance enquiry in a corruption case.
7. In result, the OA is dismissed in limine.