Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Postgraduate Institute Of Medical ... on 4 May, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.060/00979/2015
Filed On: 20.10.2015
Reserved on: 29.04.2016
Pronounced on:04.05.2016
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
Renu Chadha (Sapra), aged about 34 years, Junior Laboratory Technician (Group B Employee), Department of Biochemistry, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
.APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI KARAN SINGLA
VERSUS
1. Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh through its Director.
2. The Director cum Appointing/Disciplinary Authority (Group B, C and D Employees), Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
3. Prof. Sushmita Ghoshal, Head Cum Inquiry Officer (Second), Department of Radiotherapy, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
4. Prof. S. Radhika, Inquiry Officer (First), Department of Cytology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
...RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI D.R. SHARMA
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER(J):-
1. Applicant Renu Chadha (Sapra) has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
ii) That the Memo of Charges dated 17.05.2013,A-3 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
iii) That the impugned office order dated 15.12.2014, A-15, office orders dated 31.1.2015, A-18 and office orders dated 7.9.2015, Annexure A-23 may kindly be quashed and set aside being illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary.
iv) That the enquiry proceedings initiated vide order dated 30.9.2015, Annexure A-24, 12.10.2015, Annexure A-25 and 14.10.2015, Annexure A-27 by new Inquiry Officer (Second), respondent No. 3 may kindly be stayed in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in catena of judgments cited above.
v) That the damages, compensation and costs be imposed against respondents and awarded in favor of the applicant for causing undue harassment, defamation, mental torture and waste of time.
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, facts of the case as alleged by the applicant are as under.
3. The applicant was appointed as Junior Laboratory Technician in PGIMER Chandigarh Respondent No. 1 (in short the Institute) on 11.06.2002, and is presently working in the department of Biochemistry. The applicant and another girl namely Gurseen Rakhra made a complaint on 14.05.2012 to Chairperson of the Committee to examine complaints of sexual harassment of women at workplace (in short, the Committee) against Dr. Parveen Bansal, Assistant Professor (Adhoc), department of Biochemistry. The respondents terminated the services of Dr. Parveen Bansal on the basis of report dated 17.08.2012 of the Committee. There was no complaint against the applicant but inspite thereof notice dated 5/7.02.2013 (Annexure A-1) was issued to her. She submitted reply dated 12.02.2013 (Annexure A-2) thereto. (However Annexure A-2 is not reply to the show cause notice Annexure A-1 and is rather application seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005). Respondent No. 2 Director of the Institute served charge-sheet vide Memorandum dated 17.05.2013 (Annexure A-3) under rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (in short, the Rules) on the applicant containing the following article of charge:-
That Ms. Renu Chadha, while functioning as Junior Lab Technician, in the Department of Biochemistry, PGIMER, Chandigarh mis-conducted herself by involving herself in consensual intimate relationship at workplace and accepting gift authorship. Ms. Renu Chadha, Junior Lab. Technician, by this act has failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Institute and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct ) Rules, 1964. The applicant submitted written statement of defence dated 29.05.2013(Annexure A-4) to the charge-sheet. Respondent No. 2 vide orders dated 18.06.2013 (Annexure A-5 collectively) appointed Respondent No. 4- Professor S. Radhika as Inquiry Officer and Sh. Niranjan Singh, Administrative Officer as the Presenting Officer.
4. There were three witnesses as per the impugned charge-sheet (Annexure A-3). Witness No. 3 Dr. Sujata W appeared before the Inquiry Officer. The other two witnesses Professor Savita Malhotra and Professor Ranjana W Minz who were Chairperson and Member respectively of the Committee did not appear in the inquiry. Respondent No. 2 Director of the Institute vide letter dated 08.02.2014 (Annexure A-8) ordered to drop the said two witnesses from the inquiry proceedings. On conclusion of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer gave inquiry report dated 17.06.2014 (Annexure A-22) concluding that the charge against the applicant was not proved.
5. Respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure A-15) directed Respondent No. 4 to look into the charges afresh and the inquiry report was remitted to the Inquiry Officer-Respondent No. 4. The applicant filed representation dated 26.12.2014 (Annexure A-16) against the said order. Respondent No. 4 sent letter dated 30.12.2014 (Annexure A-17) to Respondent No. 2 mentioning that the inquiry had been carried out as per the Rules. Respondent No. 4 also expressed her inability to re-conduct the whole inquiry due to heavy prior commitments and requested Respondent No. 2 that some other faculty Member may be asked to conduct the inquiry again. Thereupon, Respondent No. 2 vide impugned orders dated 31.01.2015 (Annexure A-18 collectively) appointed Professor Sushmita Ghoshal Respondent No. 3 as Inquiry Officer and Mr. Som Nath Rana, Administrative Officer as Presenting Officer. Respondent No. 3 has started the inquiry proceedings accordingly.
6. The applicant filed O.A. No. 060/01136/2015 in this Tribunal which was disposed of vide order dated 28.05.2015 (Annexure A-20) with direction to the respondents to take a view on pending representation dated 26.12.2014 (Annexure A-16) of the applicant along with supplementary documents to be filed by the applicant, by passing reasoned and speaking order. The applicant made supplementary representation dated 01.06.2015 (Annexure A-21). Respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 07.09.2015 (Annexure A-23) rejected the representations of the applicant by detailed reasoned order, thereby maintaining the order to hold the inquiry against the applicant. The applicant sought adjournment from the Inquiry Officer Respondent No. 3 to challenge the aforesaid action of Respondent No. 2. The said request was rejected by Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 14.10.2015 (Annexure A-27). Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure A-28) allowed the request of the Presenting Officer to examine two more witnesses i.e. Rajiv Kumar, Senior Administrative Officer of the Institute and Dr. Parveen Bansal, Ex Assistant Professor as additional witnesses who were not included in the list witnesses in the charge-sheet.
7. The applicant has filed this O.A. challenging the action of the respondents on various grounds which would be discussed at the appropriate stage, as argued during the course of hearing.
8. Respondents in their written statement while not broadly disputing the factual position controverted the claim of the applicant. It was pleaded that complaint dated 14.05.2012 (Annexure R-3) by the applicant and Gurseen Rakhra was not given to the Chairperson of the Committee. On the other hand, as per report (Annexure R-1) of the Committee, copy of the complaint dated 14.05.2012 was submitted by only the applicant on 04.06.2012 to the Chairperson of the Committee. Ms. Gurseen Rakhra, withdrew her complaint before the Committee. The Committee in its report (Annexure R-1), inter-alia, concluded that the applicant involved herself in consensual intimate relationship with Dr. Parveen Bansal at workplace and accepted gift authorship from him. On its basis, the impugned charge-sheet (Annexure A-3) was served on the applicant. The impugned order (Annexure A-15) coupled with impugned order (Annexure A-23) have been defended on the grounds mentioned in the said orders. Impugned order dated 31.01.2015 (Annexure A-18) appointing Respondent No.3 as Inquiry Officer is, in fact, nothing but a change of Inquiry Officer because Respondent No. 4 expressed her inability to conduct the inquiry. The grounds pleaded by the applicant in the O.A. were controverted. Various other pleas were also raised.
9. The applicant filed replication wherein she controverted the stand of the respondents and reiterated her version.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the version of the applicant pleaded in the O.A. and contended that out of three witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, only one witness appeared in the inquiry before Respondent No. 4 and the other two witnesses were dropped by Respondent No. 2- Director of the Institute. Reference was also made to letter Annexure A-17, written by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 2, inter-alia, mentioning that the enquiry has been carried out as per the Rules. It was pointed out that in the impugned order (Annexure A-15), it has been observed that the Presenting Officer did not present full facts before the Inquiry Officer and the facts of exchange of text messages between the applicant and Dr. Parveen Bansal and acceptance of authorship have not been looked into. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that these observations in the impugned order (Annexure A-15) are contrary to the inquiry report Annexure A-22 wherein alleged text messages were dealt with by Respondent No. 4 and, therefore, there was no ground for a fresh/de-novo inquiry. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on the following judgments.
1. K.R. Deb Vs. Controller of Central Excise, Shillong 1971(2) SCC102
2. Rattan Kumar Singh Vs. Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board (Jharkhand) 2012(4) JLJR 580
3. Ram Chander Vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT & Others (O.A. NO. 3778/2010 decided on 20.11.2012 by Principal Bench of the Tribunal), and
4. Vijay Shankar Pandey Vs. Union of India & Another 2014(6) ALL LJ 650 Reference was also made to order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure A-28) passed by Respondent No. 3 permitting two more witnesses Rajiv Kumar, Senior Administrative Officer of the Institute and Dr. Parveen Bansal, Ex Assistant Professor, to contend that completely de-novo inquiry is being held by examining new witnesses.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents referred to rule 15 of the Rules to contend that Respondent No. 2 as Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer- Respondent No. 4 by recording reasons and, therefore, remitted the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report under Rule 15(1) of the Rules. It was submitted that it is not a de-novo inquiry. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Shahsi Bhushan & Another 2011(1) SCT 92. It was also submitted that the documents attached with report (Annexure R-1) of the Committee were not considered by Respondent No. 4 in her inquiry report (Annexure A-22).
13. We have carefully considered the matter. Respondent No. 2 has recorded very detailed reasons in the impugned order (Annexure A-23) for ordering further inquiry. In initial order (Annexure A-15) also, reasons were recorded for ordering further inquiry. Rule 15(1) of the Rules enables the Disciplinary Authority to remit the inquiry report to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report, for reasons to be recorded. Consequently, in the instant case, the impugned orders (Annexures A-15 and A-23) are in consonance with Rule 15(1) of the Rules. In this view, we find support from the judgment in the case of Shashi Bhushan (supra).
14. In the aforesaid context, it is significant to notice that the statement made by the applicant before the Committee which was also part of the documents attached with the charge-sheet appears not to have been taken into consideration by Respondent No. 4 in her inquiry report (Annexure A-22). The said statement made by the applicant, inter-alia, referred to the messages sent by her to Dr. Parveen Bansal and that the applicant did not make complaint earlier because she was afraid of being blackmailed by Dr. Parveen Bansal on the basis of said messages. The statement made by the applicant before the Committee was very significant but appears to have been ignored by Respondent No. 4. In this regard, observations made by Respondent No. 2 (at pages 121 to 127 of the paper-book) in the impugned order (Annexure A-23) are very significant, besides other reasons recorded in the said order.
15. Some text messages have also been placed on record by the respondents as Annexure R-5 collectively. The same are very damaging and objectionable, and have to be taken into consideration.
16. We are satisfied that Respondent No. 2 by impugned orders (Annexures A-15 and A-23) has not ordered fresh/de-novo inquiry and has rather remitted the enquiry report to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report as permissible under Rule 15(1) of the Rules. Detailed reasons have also been recorded for the same. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity much less illegality in the said impugned orders.
17. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable on facts. In the case of K.R. Deb (supra), inquiry was conducted thrice by different Inquiry Officers who exonerated the delinquent officer and fresh inquiry was ordered by the Punishing Authority 4th time when the delinquent was found guilty and punished. Thus, in that case, 4th inquiry was ordered after three different Inquiry Officers had exonerated the delinquent officer. The said judgment is, thus, completely distinguishable on facts.
18. In the case of the Rattan Kumar Singh (supra), the inquiry officer exonerated the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order without any valid and sound reasons. The reasons assigned by the Disciplinary Authority were found to be perverse, totally improbable, unjustified and result of bias. So the said case is also completely distinguishable.
19. In the case of Ram Chander (supra), the facts were completely different and the case was decided on the basis of facts which were found in favour of the applicant. In the case of Vijay Shankar (supra), it was observed that the fact that the report submitted by Enquiring Authority is not acceptable to the Disciplinary Authority, is not a ground for completely setting aside the enquiry report and ordering second enquiry. However, in the instant case, neither the enquiry report (Annexure A-22) given by Respondent No. 4 has been set aside by Respondent No. 2 nor second enquiry has been ordered. On the contrary, according to the judgment in the case of K.R. Deb (supra), further enquiry can be ordered in certain circumstances. The same has been done in the instant case and, therefore, this judgment rather supports the case of respondents.
20. As regards reference by counsel for the applicant to order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure A-28) passed by Respondent No. 3 thereby permitting two additional witnesses to be examined in the enquiry on behalf of the department, is concerned, the same has no relevance to the fate of the instant O.A. The said order (Annexure A-28) is not even under challenge in the instant O.A. Moreover, Respondent No. 3 has recorded reasons for permitting the said witnesses. Rajiv Kumar, who was Member of the Committee is being examined to authenticate the report of the Committee and the documents provided by them whereas Dr. Parveen Bansal is to be examined because of the text messages allegedly exchanged between him and the applicant. It was stated that he provided the said messages to the Committee and, therefore, his examination during the present enquiry is necessary to confirm the authenticity of the said text messages etc. Thus, Respondent No. 3 has allowed the said two witnesses to be examined during enquiry by recording reasons for the same.
21. Since further inquiry into charge-sheet against the applicant is being upheld, the question of quashing the impugned charge-sheet (Annexure A-3) at this stage, would not arise.
22. Letter (Annexure A-17) written by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 2 also does not help the applicant in any manner. In the said letter, Respondent No. 4 affirmed that the inquiry was carried out as per the Rules. However, further enquiry has been ordered not on the ground that procedure under the Rules was not followed but further enquiry has been ordered for altogether different reasons. Respondent No. 4, vide this letter, expressed her inability to conduct further inquiry due to heavy prior commitments. Consequently, Respondent No. 3 was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide impugned order dated 31.01.2015 (Annexure A-18) which also, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity.
23. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in this O.A. which is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. It is expressly made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the impugned charge sheet and evidentiary value of the evidence led/to be led in the inquiry.
(JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL)
MEMBER (J)
(RAJWANT SANDHU)
MEMBER(A)
Dated: 04.05.2016
`mw
1
(OA No. 060/00979/2015 )