Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. G. Kumar vs Uoi & Ors. Through on 5 February, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-3313/2011
Reserved on : 30.01.2013.
Pronounced on :05.02.2013.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Sh. G. Kumar,
S/o Sh. I. Gurusamy,
R/o Forest Qtrs. Dhavali,
Ponda, Goa. . Applicant
(through Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)
Versus
UOI & Ors. through
1. The Secretary,
Govt. of India,
Ministry of Environment & Forest,
Paryavaran Bhawan,
CGO Complex,
New Delhi.
2. The Chief Secretary,
Chief Secretariat,
Govt. of Puducheery,
Puducherry. . Respondents
(through Sh. R.N. Singh, Advocate for R-1 and Sh. S.J. Aristotle, Advocate for R-2)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicant has sought the following relief:-
(i) quash and set aside the charge memo dated 16.09.2010 (A-1) and direct the respondents to release all consequential benefits.
to allow the OA with cost.
(iii) pass any further orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Facts of the case are that the applicant is an Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer of 1980 batch belonging to AGMUT cadre. Vide order dated 01.12.2000 of Government of Goa, he has been served a charge sheet on the following charges:-
Article-I That the said Shri G. Kumar, IFS while officiating as the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Puducherry, during the period from 1999 to 2000, had, in the guise of sale of sandalwood of 100 kgs to the Managing Director, Adhiparasakthi Trust, Melmaruvathoor, caused to issue a Transit Permit No. 37 dated 14.07.1999; handed over 100 kgs of sandalwood to some person in Melmaruvathoor, without following official procedures and without realizing the sale proceeds and without depositing the same in Govt. accounts and has thus caused wrongful loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 60,000/-. As such, he has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and rendered his conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant by way of violating clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) respectively of sub rule (1) of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-II That the said Shri G. Kumar, IFS, during the aforesaid period, while officiating as Deputy Conservator of Forests, without physically inspecting the following wildlife belonging to one Shri E.N. Palanisam, stated to be kept at 169, Perumal Lil street, Periyakalapet, Puducherry and fully knowing well that those animals and birds were not at all kept in the said premises issued a possession certificate dated 20.06.1997 and permit for transporting the same to Dindugal, in the capacity of Chief Wildlife Warden and thus failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and has rendered his conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant, in violation of clauses (i),(ii) and (iii) respectively of sub rule (1) of Rule 3 of the CCS (conduct) Rules, 1964.
Spotted Deer 4 nos (Two male & Two female) Sambar (One male & One Female) Python (One male & One Female Nilgiri Langur (One Male & One Female) Peacock (Three Male & Three Female)
3. The applicants grievance is that the first article of charge pertains to the period from 1999 to 2000 and the charge sheet has been served on him more than 10 years later in 2010. Similarly, the second charge pertains to an incident of 20.06.1997. Thus, the charge sheet is hopelessly delayed and according to the applicant is liable to be quashed. The applicants contention is that he has been penalized on account of the fact that while working as Deputy Conservator of Forests in Puducherry he had refused to issue a license for Sandalwood Oil Extraction as this was against the guidelines prescribed by Honble Supreme Court. According to the applicant, this had annoyed the then Forest Minister who had got him transferred. However, when the applicant obtained stay of transfer from the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal the aforesaid Minister started pressurizing him to withdraw his O.A. The applicant has stated that when he refused to comply an attempt was also made on his life in which he received severe injuries and was hospitalized for 15 days. Thus, the applicant had tried to prove that the charge sheet issued to him is as a result of political vindictiveness. Applicant has placed reliance on a plethora of judgments of various Courts to say that the charge sheet issued after such a long time gap needs to be quashed. He has placed reliance on the judgments of this Tribunal in the case of Sh. Rahul Gupta Vs. UOI, dated 03.02.2009 and B.A. Dhayalan Vs. UOI (OA-461/2010) dated 13.07.2010 and the Apex Court judgments in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh & Anr., (1991) 16 ATC 514, Secretary to Government, Porhibition and Excise Department Vs. L. Srinivasan, (1996) 2 SCC 157, Food Corporation of India Vs. V.P. Bhatia, MANU/SC/1401/1998, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakrishnan, 1998(4) SCC 154, State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, 1995 SCC (2) 570, P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D., T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636. His basic contention remains that on ground of delay itself the charge sheet deserved to be quashed.
4. Respondents, on the other hand, have denied any political vindictiveness in the case. They have stated in their reply that while the applicant was working as Deputy Conservator of Forests in Puducherry petitions were received from the three sources, namely:-
Pondicherry Welfare Association, Puducherry.
Anonymous complaint and one Thiru Parasuraman alleging that:-
(i) Thiru G. Kumar, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Puducherry has issued a transit permit for the sale of 100 kgs. Of sandle wood from the seized stock of Pondicherry Forests Department and the sale proceeds was not deposited in the Government account and the same had been swindled by him and that
(ii) thiru G. Kumar, Deputy Conservator of Forests in the capacity of Chief Wild Life Warden had issued ownership certificate to Schedule-I animals to one Thiru. E.N. Palanisamy, Managing Director, Moohambigai, S.C.A.V Spinning Mills, Kaveriammal campus, Seelapadi Post, Dindugal, Tamil Nadu in gross violation of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and he has also given transit permit to transport the above animals to Dindugal.
5. The respondents further state that the Ministry of Forest, Government of India had also sought investigations in these complaints. Consequently, the matter was handed over to Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Puducherry on 12.04.2000 for investigation and he submitted his report on 05.12.2000. The first stage advice of CVC was sought on 31.10.2002. CVC on 26.12.2002 advised initiation of major penalty proceedings. The respondents further state that the competent authority for proceeding against the applicant was Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India, who were required to be furnished all original documents in respect of the applicant. Since other officers of Puducherry were also involved in the enquiry on the same case, the documents could be furnished to Ministry of Environment & Forests only on 04.06.2008 after completion of enquiry against other delinquent officials. Thereafter, Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi vide their letter dated 22.05.2009 informed Government of Puducherry that after examination of the case in consultation with CVC the Ministry had decided to initiate major penalty proceedings against the applicant. The draft charge sheet was prepared and got approved from the Ministry of Environment & Forests on 16.07.2010 and was served on the applicant on 16.09.2010. Thus, according to the respondents the delay was only procedural since it involved correspondence between Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, CVC and Government of Puducherry.
6. We have heard both parties and perused the material placed on record.
7. We are not inclined to agree with the contention of the applicant that charge sheet was issued to him out of political vindictiveness. The reply of the respondents has clearly brought out that the decision to charge sheet him was taken by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi after due process of consultation with CVC. Moreover, the applicant has himself admitted that he had been transferred out to Arunachal Pradesh in the year 2000 itself, hence it is unimaginable that proceedings were started under pressure of the then Forests Minister of Puducherry.
8. Regarding delay, the applicants counsel has placed reliance on various judgments of different Courts. In particular, he referred the judgment of N. Radhakrishnan (supra), para-19 of which reads as follows:-
19. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. if the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse consideration.
9. The respondents counsel, on the other hand, argued that Honble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. V. Appala Swamy, (2007) 14 SCC 49 has given the following directions:-
So far as the question of delay in concluding the departmental proceedings as against a delinquent officer is concerned, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down. Each case must be determined on its own facts. The principles upon which a proceeding can be directed to be quashed on the ground of delay are: (I) where by reason of the delay, the employer condoned the lapses on the part of the employee; (2) where the delay caused prejudice to the employee. Such a case of prejudice, however, is to be made out by the employee before the inquiry officer. The High Court did not consider any of the aforementioned aspects. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court was not sustainable.
10. We have considered this case in the light of directions given by the Apex Court in various judgments. We find that the first charge made against an officer in this case, namely, selling sandalwood without following the laid down procedure, not depositing the sale proceeds in government accounts and thus causing loss to the exchequer, is of serious nature. The second charge is also serious involving issue of false possession certificate and permitting transportation animals and birds. Moreover, as is evident from the facts of the case the enquiry originated on the basis of petitions received from different sources. The respondents have also tried to explain the delay in initiating proceedings elaborating at great length, the various stages that have been gone through before the charge sheet was served. Thus, it has been brought out that first there was an enquiry by Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption followed by consultations with CVC and Ministry of Enforcement & Forests, Government of India. Thereafter, Ministry of Enforcement & Forests, Government of India again consulted CVC before coming to the conclusion that the officer needs to be charge sheeted. Then there was delay in supplying original documents to the Central Ministry because they were stuck up in enquiry of another two officers of Government of Puducherry.
11. From the above, it is clear that the process which had been going on since last several years culminated into issue of charge sheet on 16.09.2010. We, therefore, do not see any justification in interfering in these proceedings at this stage on grounds of delay. The applicant will, of course, be at liberty to raise this issue and prejudice caused to him before the enquiry officer as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in V. Appala Swamys case (supra).
12. We find no merit in this O.A. and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Vinita/