Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
K.V.M. Abdunnafih vs Union Of India Through on 24 December, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
OA No.2055/2010
Reserved on: 26.08.2014
Pronounced on: 24.12.2014
Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman
Honble Dr. B. K. Sinha, Member (A)
K.V.M. Abdunnafih
Language cum Liason Officer,
Indian Consulate,
Dubai. Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri U.K. Sharma and Ms. Urmil Sharma)
Versus
Union of India through
Secretary,
Ministry of External Affairs,
178, South Block,
New Delhi 110 011. Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Priyanka Bhardwaj)
O R D E R
By Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A):
The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the order dated 29.06.2009 of the Joint Secretary (Administration), Appellate Authority, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India upholding the punishment of reduction of pay by permanent withdrawal of ten increments.
2. The applicant has sought for the following relief(s):
i) Set aside the impugned order passed by the Joint Secretary (Administration) & the Appellate Authority bearing No.Q/LC/579/14/08, dated 29.06.2009 and quash the penalty imposed upon the applicant with all consequential relief.
ii) Allow the present O.A.
iii) Any other relief, order or directions as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the applicant.
3. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he has been working as Language and Liaison Officer, Consulate General of India, Dubai for the past 27 years. On 18.05.2008, one Mrs. Sindhu Anandavally approached the Consulate and met the applicant along with two other persons, namely, Hamza and Ishaq, who were acting as her guides and friends, with a letter from one Salam Pappinisseri. The said Sindhu Anandavally complained of sexual harassment at the hands of some local persons and requested that her passport be retrieved so that her visa could be renewed. The applicant states that he provided shelter to the middle aged lady Sindhu Anandavally in the house of his daughter one Shameela Nafih till her problem could be taken care of. The applicant also provided financial help to Sindhu Anandavally in the shape of air ticket. On 04.07.2008, said Sindhu Anandavally finally boarded the flight to Trivendrum but before that she gave an interview in Kairali T.V. thanking the Consultate and one Pushpakaran for providing her ticket and other assistance to leave Duabi. However, on 10.07.2008, the applicant received a memorandum issued by Head of Chancery, Consulate General of India, Dubai to show cause for having taken the said Sindhu Anandavally to his residence for working as a housemaid. The applicant was charged for not following the procedure prescribed by the Consulate in employing her as a housemaid and not arranging accommodation in a shelter home. The applicant submitted his reply. Thereafter, no action was taken. However, the disciplinary enquiry was conducted between 11.11.2008 to 17.11.2008 and two witnesses, namely, one P. Ajithakumar and K.G. Kesavan were examined. On 12.11.2008, no witness was examined and on 16.11.2008/17.11.2008, one Geetha Krishna Iyer and one A.P. Moideen were examined as defence witnesses. On 19.11.2008, one B.S. Mubarak was also examined through video conference. The said M.G. Pushpakaran was also examined as a prosecution witness and the case was closed for final argument. However, on 17.12.2008, another prosecution witness one P. Ishaq was examined. On 24.12.2008, the Inquiry Authority one R.C. Nair, Consul/First Secretary submitted a report to the disciplinary authority holding charges no.1, 2, 3 and 6 proved and charge no.4 partially proved. However, charge no.5 stood not proved. The applicant submitted his representation to the disciplinary authority which imposed the impugned punishment. The applicant filed an appeal before the appellate authority who, vide order dated 29.06.2009 rejected the same. The instant Original Application has been filed against the impugned order on the grounds that no procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was followed. It is the case of the applicant that one A.P. Moiddin was examined on 17.11.2008 i.e. after the enquiry had been closed. The Inquiry Authority treated himself as if he was the prosecutor. The applicant did not receive all the documents that he had desired. These irregularities completely vitiated the enquiry. In the second place, the applicant is an Indian national and an overseas employee who is bound by the terms of contract. However, the respondents have not been able to produce any contract. The applicant further submits that there is no written complaint against him. The complainant of one Pushpakaran, who being the Head of the Indian Cultural Centre is not even an employee of Consulate but rather a member of the Indian overseas Cultural Centre. The applicant submits that there was not a whisper against him and he had no role in the entire affair and that he served the Consulate with distinction for 23 years. He further submits that he had been kind to Sindhu Anandavally and has been made to pay the penalty for his goodness.
4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is a case of total non-application of mind. Even the appellate authority, the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, has not applied his mind.
5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit submitting therein that the lady in question, namely, Sindhu Anandavally had been sexually exploited. Her complaint should have been produced by the applicant before the appropriate authority i.e. the Labour & Welfare Section of the Consular Wing of the Consulate dealing with such cases, but instead she was made to work as housemaid at the residence of his daughter. The matter was brought to the notice of Honble Shri Vyalar Ravi, then Minister of Overseas Indian Affairs during his visit to Dubai in June, 2008 through the media, and a copy of the letter from one Pappinisseri was also handed over to the Minister. However, since the applicant had not reported the matter to the Consulate, there was no record available. After the departure of the Minister on 14.06.2008, the applicant handed over said Anandavally an emergency certificate and Dhs.400/- and dropped her at Al Ain, where she was previously staying. She was advised by one Pushpakaran to submit a representation to the Consulate. He himself had addressed a letter to the Consul General apart from the representation of the lady dated 02.07.2008 giving detailed background of the case and also criticizing on the functioning of the Consulate. It was at this point of time that financial assistance was arranged by ICWC as also arrangements for her travel to Trivendrum were made on 04.07.2008. The unauthorized lodging of the said lady by the applicant was highlighted by the media which provided an adverse publicity to the Indian Consulate. An enquiry into the matter was initiated on the basis of said Pushpakarans letter and representation of the lady in question. Statements of Hamza and Ishaq were also recorded. Memos were served upon the applicant and a detailed enquiry followed in which all the procedures had been followed. The respondents have submitted that the applicant is not bound by the CCS (CCA) Rules being an overseas employee. However, the rules of natural justice have been followed. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents also state that during the course of examination in the enquiry proceedings, one prosecution witness Ishaq had clearly mentioned that the lady in question wanted to file a police complaint but was advised by the applicant against that step. The statement of Sindhu Anandavally recorded in preliminary enquiry by one Ajitha Kumar on 02.08.2008 clearly brings out that she was victim of sexual exploitation and was made to work in the house of the applicants daughter which she could not refuse because of the circumstances. This act of the applicant was totally in violation of the rules and norms. Thus, the applicant is guilty of suppression of facts and undermining the discipline to serve his personal interest. The applicant was provided with copies of the enquiry report and relevant documents and, as such, principles of natural justice have been fully observed.
6. The applicant has filed a rejoinder application largely refuting the charges against him. The gist of oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant has already been noted and no further points were raised.
7. We have carefully considered the pleadings as well as the documents submitted by the rival parties and have also carefully heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. To our mind, the following issues need to be adjudicated in this case:-
1) What is the scope of judicial interference in departmental enquiries?
2) Whether any procedural irregularities have been committed in the departmental enquiry or rules of natural justice have been infringed, which serve to vitiate the same?
3) Whether the proceedings and orders are without application of mind?
4) What relief, if any, could be provided to the applicant?
8. Insofar as the first of the issues is concerned, it is well settled legal proposition that the principles of natural justice need to be complied with and the employee has to be treated fairly in departmental proceedings which may culminate into imposition of a punishment. However, it is appropriate that the scope of judicial intervention in departmental proceedings be defined at the very outset. The role of judicial intervention in departmental proceedings is indeed limited and circumscribed by pronouncements of Honble Supreme Court and Honble High Courts from time to time. During departmental proceedings, the inquiry officer is face to face with the charged officer and also has the benefit of examination of the documents on which reliance has been placed in the inquiry. He is also a privy to examination of witnesses and their cross-examination as well as proving of the documents adduced as evidence. This benefit is not there either in the appellate court or in tribunal/high courts, which have to rely upon the evidence recorded during the course of departmental proceedings. It is well settled law that the scope of judicial review is limited and is permissible to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching the decision has been observed correctly, and not the decision as such. However, we cannot reappraise the evidence on record and are to confine ourselves to the main issues concerned with the exercise of jurisdiction, namely, whether departmental proceedings are vitiated on account of mala fide or infringement of any statutory provisions relating to conduct of departmental inquiry or proceedings being barred by some gross procedural laches. In case of S.R. Tewari Vs. Union Of India & Anr. Vs. R.K. Singh & Anr. 2013 (6) SCC 602], the Honble Supreme Court has held that where the findings are perverse i.e. they have been arrived at by ignoring and excluding relevant material or taking irrelevant inadmissible material into account, the findings of the inquiry are likely to be set aside. For better illustration, it is apt to quote paras 22 and 24 from the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in this very case:-
22. The role of the court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the court cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the findings arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. The court has to record reasons as to why the punishment is disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. (Vide: Union of India & Ors. v. Bodupalli Gopalaswami, (2011) 13 SCC 553; and Sanjay Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 1783).
24. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is against the weight of evidence, or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. (Vide: Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1984 SC 1805; Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 677; Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh thr. Secretary, AIR 2010 SC 589; and Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189). This view has been further supported in GAIL India Vs. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation [2014 (1) SCC 329]:-
28. In Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India and others (2013) 7 SCC 1, this Court was called upon to consider the scope of judicial review of complex economic decision taken by the State or its instrumentalities. The Government of India, ONGC and Shell entered into a production sharing contract with a private enterprise for exploration and exploitation of crude oil and natural gas in respect of the Rajasthan Block. After due deliberation, the Government of India endorsed the decision taken by ONGC. While refusing to interfere with the decision of the Government, this Court observed:
We notice that ONGC and the Government of India have considered various commercial and technical aspects flowing from the PSC and also its advantages that ONGC would derive if the Cairn and Vedanta deal was approved. This Court sitting in the jurisdiction cannot sit in judgment over the commercial or business decision taken by parties to the agreement, after evaluating and assessing its monetary and financial implications, unless the decision is in clear violation of any statutory provisions or perverse or taken for extraneous considerations or improper motives. States and its instrumentalities can enter into various contracts which may involve complex economic factors. State or the State undertaking being a party to a contract, have to make various decisions which they deem just and proper. There is always an element of risk in such decisions, ultimately it may turn out to be correct decision or a wrong one. But if the decision is taken bona fide and in public interest, the mere fact that decision has ultimately proved to be wrong, that itself is not a ground to hold that the decision was mala fide or taken with ulterior motives. Similar views find echo in the judgments of Honble Supreme Court in Bihar State Government Secondary Teacher Association Vs. Bihar State Education Service Association, 2012(11) SCALE 291 and Union of India Vs. Upendra Singh, (1994)3 SCC 357. In the decision of Upendra Singh (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has emphasized that the Tribunal cannot take over the function of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into and it has no jurisdiction to go into the truth of the charges or the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority, as the case may be. In the case of H.B. Gandhi Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority Kamal Vs. Gopinath and Sons, 1992 Supp.(2) SCC 312, the Honble Supreme Court reaffirmed that the judicial review is not directed against the decision, but is confined to the decision making process. It cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of the decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that individual would receive fair treatment, but not test the correctness of the decision taken by the competent authority. It is not an appeal from the decision but rather a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The Honble Supreme Court was, at pains, to dispel the impression that the court sits in judgment not in respect of the correctness of the decision but of the decision making process. It flows from the above that the Honble Supreme Court has drawn a Laxman Rekha, which this Tribunal cannot venture to cross. We, therefore, cannot go into reappraisal of the facts and the evidence adduced before us and into questions of identity and motives. This issue is accordingly answered.
9. Insofar as the second of the issues is concerned, we need to look at the chargesheet. There were six articles of charge against the applicant, which read as under:-
Article-I That Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih, while functioning as Langauge-cum-Liaison Officer in Consulate General of India, Dubai, was approached on 18th May, 2008 by Mrs. Sindhu Anandavally, a victim of sexual harassment by the Visa agents, for protection and further assistance.
That Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih instead of reporting the case of Consul (Labour), handing over the case to the lady staff Mrs. Geetha Krishna Iyer, local Clerk in the Labour Section, who normally handles such cases; ensuring Mrs. Sindhus lodging into the Consulate shelter, initiating action to repatriate her to India, initiating action against the people who allegedly harassed Mrs. Sindhu and taking other corrective actions, took Mr. Sindhu to his residence to work as a housemaid.
That Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih did not inform his seniors and other officers concerned in Labour Section about the arrival of Mrs. Sindhu Anandavally, a victim of trafficking, at the Consulate on May 18, 2008 for assistance and protection and that Mrs. Sindhu was staying at his residence and not at the shelter.
That Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih did not knowingly and deliberate adhere to the standard procedures set by practices and conventions followed in such cases normally and usually at the Consulate and, therefore, he failed to maintain devotion to duty.
Article-II That Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih, in spite of directions from supervisory officer Mr. B.S. Mubarak, the then Consul (Labour & Welfare) to contact Mr. Salam Pappinisseri for bringing Mrs. Sindhu Anandavally to the Consulate shelter, failed to do so and indulged in willful insubordination.
That Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih misinformed Mr. B.S. Mubarak subsequently on his enquiry about the said lady that he was in touch with Mr. Salam and that the lady had found somebody who could offer her employment and hence she was not willing to come to the Consulate shelter.
That Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih indulged in indiscipline and conduct which is unbecoming of a Consulate staff member and deliberately failed to maintain devotion to duty.
Article-III That Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih, who was in the knowledge about victimization and harassment of Mrs. Sindhu Anandvally, did not initiate action against the persons, who sexually harassed Smt. Sindhu and whose telephone numbers were available in the letter presented to him by Mrs. Sindhu.
That Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih by failing to initiate such action allowed the wrongdoers to remain unpunished to the detriment of the public confidence in the working of the Consulate.
That Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih, therefore, deliberately failed to maintain devotion to duty.
Article-IV That Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih, for personal gain knowingly ignored the laid-down standard procedures, practices and conventions for handling women of immoral trafficking by escorting her to his home for use as a domestic servant.
That Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih malafidely misinformed and discouraged Mrs. Sindhu Anandvally about the working of the shelter that it takes 7-8 months to conclude such cases and once in the shelter she will not be allowed to contact anybody from outside.
That Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih, therefore, misused his official position for personal gain and failed to maintain absolute integrity.
Article-V That Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih got processed application of Mrs. Sindhu Anandavally for issuance of Emergency Certificate without the knowledge of the officers in the Labour Section and directly and personally approached Visa Section only on 8.6.08. Mrs. Sindhu had approached Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih at the Consulate on 18th May, 2008 for assistance.
That Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih deliberately delayed action in retrieval of Mrs. Sindhus passport and issuance of Emergency Certificate. After getting the Emergency Certificate issued, he deliberately escorted the lady to AI Ain instead of sending the lady to India.
Therefore, Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih failed to maintain devotion to duty and his actions were unbecoming of a Consulate staff member.
Article-VI That Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih by his acts of omission and commission caused media coverage of the incident including reporting on news channels transmitted to UAE, which caused embarrassment to the Consulate and to the Government of India.
Therefore, Mr. K.V.M. Abdunnafih indulged in conduct unbecoming of a Consulate staff member.
10. We also notice that the chargesheet is accompanied by statement of imputation of misconduct in support of articles of charge, list of documents upon which reliance has been placed, and list of witnesses by whom articles of charge have been framed. We also find that the enquiry report is a detailed one in which the dates of examination of witnesses have been provided. The inquiry officer in his report has also given a list of prosecution witnesses as well as defence witnesses and the dates of their examination. It appears that P. Ajitha kumar, Consul, K.G. Kesavan, Vice Consul, B.S. Mubarak, formerly Consul, M.G. Pushpakaran and P. Ishaq appeared as prosecution witnesses and had been examined and cross-examined. Similarly, one Geetha Krishna Iyer, Clerk and A.P. Moideen appeared as defence witnesses. We further find from the inquiry report that the inquiry officer has recorded in detail the evidence in respect of each of the Articles of Charge and has also computed their evidentiary value and on the basis thereof the inquiry officer has come to the conclusion that the applicant in his own statement had confirmed that he was aware of the standard procedure followed in such cases at the Consulate as he had never mentioned anywhere (in his replies to the Articles of Charges) that he was not aware of the standard procedures to be followed in such cases at the Consulate. However, the applicant treated the case of Sindhu Anandvally only as a passport retrieval case on his own without the knowledge and consent of his supervisory officer. He knowingly and deliberately chose to ignore the standard procedures and took said Sindhu Anandvally to his house to work as housemaid which had not been possibly done if the standard procedures would have been adopted. The inquiry officer concluded thus:-
The CO also admitted in his statements quoted above that he took Sindhu to his residence where his daughter is also staying. It is immaterial whether Sindhu was taken to his residence to work as housemaid by force or otherwise. As a prudent Consulate official, CO should not have taken a lady who has come to the Consulate for whatever help whether it is for retrieval of passport only and/or for seeking shelter and/or for filing a complaint with the police to take appropriate action the culprits and/or repatriating her back to India. Likewise, in respect of second article of charge, the inquiry officer again followed the same pattern and relying on the deposition of witnesses and documentary evidences relied upon by the applicant arrived at the following conclusion:-
From the evidence available on record and the examination of the witnesses, it is proved that CO did not keep his supervisory officer informed of the action being taken by him and kept him in dark about his action of taking her to his residence for being employed as a maid-servant. The Charge No.2 has, therefore, been proved. Similarly, in respect of article of charge no.3, the finding of the inquiry officer is unequivocal, which reads as under:-
From the records available and the evidence taken from the witnesses, Charge No.3 i.e. COs inaction in brining the persons who sexually harassed Sindhu, to book, brought bad name to the Consulate and thereby given the impression to the public that Consulate failed in one of its prime responsibilities, against CO, has been proved. In respect of article of charge no.4, the inquiry officer finds as under:-
By his own admittance, it is proved that CO took Sindhu to his home to work as domestic servant for his daughter in contravention of standard procedures and practices being followed in the Consulate while handling such cases. The second portion of the charge i.e. CO misinformed about the working of the shelter with bad intention, has not been conclusively proved beyond doubt. Therefore, charge no.4 has been partially proved. In respect of charge no.5 also, the inquiry officer has arrived at the finding that there was no conclusive evidence to prove the applicant guilty of charge no.5. The inquiry officer further held charge no.6, i.e., the applicant by his own acts of omission and commission attracted media coverage of the incident, which caused embarrassment to the Consulate and to the Government of India, proved.
11. The applicant had submitted a representation dated 12.02.2009 in response to the Memorandum dated 21.01.2009 wherein he had raised the points as raised in the instant OA. The applicant mentions in para 7 of his representation that the Consulate has failed to produce one Hamza, who is also a resident of the UAE, and who accompanied Sindhu to Consulate when she initially came to the Consulate with the petitioner, who was present in Pushpakarans residence while Ajitha Kumar was taking statement from Sindhu and Ajitha Kumar took statement from him also at Pushpakarans residence. The applicant also assails the enquiry proceedings that after all inquiry proceedings on the ground were over, the disciplinary authority again sought clarifications and advices from the inquiry officer which is unfair & against the procedure and rules. The applicant has further stated that enquiry proceedings were based on the investigation while Ajitha Kumar said in his deposition that he had not made any investigation, and the report submitted by him is not an investigation report. In this regard, we have perused the order of the Consulate General of India, Dubai dated 24.02.2009 wherein the Consulate General has arrived at the conclusion that there was sufficient material in the examination, cross-examination and documentary evidence adduced to hold that the applicant had taken the said Sindhu to his or his daughters residence against the norms of the Consulate without informing and in fact misleading his supervisory staff. The Consulate General has also given reference of applicants representation dated 12.02.2009 in para 10 of the order and has discussed the enquiry proceedings on the touchstone of standards. The Consulate General has also dealt with the contention of the applicant that he had not got any opportunity at any stage to cross-examine the said Sindhu and that she had refused to participate in the enquiry proceedings. However, her refusal to participate in the enquiry proceedings cannot by itself invalidate the entire enquiry and its findings. The Inquiry Officer had no option but to proceed on the basis of her statement and further material facts available on record. The Consulate General also took note of the fact that the applicant is being indicted for such serious charges.
12. We also take note of the fact that in the case of Vijay Chibber versus Union of India [WP(C) No.2968/05] there was a similar case wherein the services of the petitioner, who was a US national, were terminated. The Honble High Court of Delhi upheld the order of the Tribunal in the following terms:-
The guidance and rules made for the locally recruited employees in the Mission are applicable in her case. She was also governed by the terms and conditions of her appointment. Therefore, the protection given under Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India is not available to her, which also could not be disputed by the counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of his submissions. The petitioner is governed by separate terms and conditions framed for such staff by the Ministry of External Affairs, which permits termination of service on the ground of inadequate performance, willful misconduct, disobedience or neglect of duties, breach of security and some other grounds. In terms of the contract a right was reserved on the respondents to terminate her service without assigning any reason whatsoever by giving one months notice or one months pay in lieu thereof. The position is quite clear that locally recruited employees are not governed by CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. They are recruited on contractual basis and guided by the rules of natural justice.
13. The plea of the applicant that neither the letter of appointment nor the copy of contract has been adduced before the court by the respondents, to our mind, is of no consequence. It was stated that the concerned documents being 32 years old could not be produced. However, if these were not available in the Consulate, the applicant could have produced these letters as an employee is expected to be armed with his letter of appointment and documents relating to contract which bind him. We further find that the impugned order dated 29.06.2009 is well structured and detailed one. It encompasses the entire vista of the incident as also the defence of the applicant and the view of the appellate authority. In this regard, para nos. 9 & 10 of the aforesaid order dated 29.06.2009 are worth extracting, which read as under:-
9. The C.O. in his appeal dated 30.03.2009 has alleged that all allegations leveled against him are framed without any base and with prejudices and biases and he had not done any offence or wrong against the rules, procedures and the set standard and practices followed in the Consulate in such a case of Mrs. Sindhu Anandvally. The C.O. has also alleged that no rules had been laid down for conducting inquiry, imposing penalty and allowing appeal within stipulated time. The inquiry was conducted as per the principles of natural justice by appointing an Inquiry Officer and the C.O. was afforded full opportunity to defend the charges against him by examination of witnesses and engaging a legal counsel as his Defence Assistant. The C.O. willingly participated in all the hearing during the Inquiry proceedings and never lodged any objection to the manner of the proceedings during the course of Inquiry. All the charges except Article 5 have been proved during the Inquiry proceedings.
10. The Appellate Authority observes that the C.O. has only reiterated the issues submitted by him during the Inquiry and in his representation on the Inquiry Report and has not brought forth any new evidence in his appeal. In view of the observations made at para 5 to 9 above, the Appellate Authority is of the opinion that the decision of the Disciplinary Authority vide order No.DUBA/ADM/842/ 01/2008 dated 24.2.2009, imposing a penalty of reduction in pay be permanent withdrawal of 10 increments, is in order and therefore, reject the appeal of the C.O.
14. From the above, it is apparent that the charges against the applicant stand well established and that the rules of natural justice have been followed. It has already been stated in respect of Article of Charge no.1 that this Tribunal is not to go into re-appraisal of the evidence. We are satisfied that the points raised by the applicant in this OA have all been considered at various stages in the enquiry and they leave no doubt whatsoever. This issue is accordingly decided against the applicant.
15. Insofar as the third of the issues is concerned, it is partly covered while dealing with issue nos. 1 & 2. We find that the plea of the applicant that there is no application of mind does not get substantiated. We are fully satisfied that the way the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted, the examination of witnesses and their cross-examination, recording of evidence, discussion on each article of charge and the evidence based thereupon, the opportunity given to the applicant to put forth his case, consideration of the representation of the applicant on all the relevant points, and the wordings of the order would indicate that the proceedings have been conducted with due care and caution following the rules of natural justice and the applicant being fully seized with the nuances, the respondents have passed well considered orders. We have no reason to hold that the respondent authorities have passed their orders without application of mind. This issue is accordingly decided against the applicant.
16. Insofar as the last issue is concerned, no doubt the charges against the applicant are serious. It is well borne out from the proceedings that the applicant was aware that the said Sindhu Anandvally was a victim of sexual harassment which is an offence under any law. There was a procedure prescribed for dealing with such cases with which the applicant having rendered 23 years of service was fully aware as has been established in the departmental proceedings, yet he chose to subvert the process of law by glossing over the matter and this was compounded by the fact that the incident of taking the law in motion and letting the competent departmental officers dealing with the matter, he took said Sindhu Anandvally to his or his daughters residence and made her to work as housemaid. It is also well established that this attracted sufficient media attention and reputation of the Consulate General of India was sullied both in the local newspapers at Dubai and at home, which ultimately reflected that Government of India and its officials cannot protect the honour of Indian expatriates working abroad and ensure justice for them. We are also satisfied that the process of natural justice and law has been fully complied with. At the end we would only like to say that Embassies and its allied institutions are extension of Indian Territory abroad and they represent the image of India. If any of its employees disrespects this knowing the same to be wrong and particularly in matters as serious as the one in hand, he deserves to be dealt with strictly in measures of law. In this regard, we find that the punishment given to the applicant is mild considering the gravity of the charges. It means that the authorities have not only dealt with the matter judiciously but have also been lenient in awarding the punishment. Therefore, there is absolutely no substance in the instant Original Application and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Dr. B.K. Sinha) (Syed Rafat Alam) Member (A) Chairman /naresh/