Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Rajendra Kumar vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 19 July, 2012
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH Jaipur, this the 19th day of July, 2012 Original Application No.78/2011 CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.RATHORE, MEMBER (JUDL.) HONBLE MR. ANIL KUMAR, MEMBER (ADMV.) Rajendra Kumar s/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, r/o Koli Mohalla, Aklera, District Jhalawar, at present working as Class-IV employee at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jhalawar. .. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Nand Kishore) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Human Resource Development, New Delhi since deleted 2. The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, 92 Gandhi Nagar Marg, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur 4. The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jhalawar. 5. D.P.Meena, T.G.T. (Sanskrit), Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jhalawar, C-4, Staff quarters, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jhalawar. .. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri V.S.Gurjar for resp. No. 1 to 4 and Shri A.C.Upadhyay for resp. No.5) ORDER (ORAL)
The present OA is directed against the letter dated 1.2.2011 (Ann.A/1) issued by respondent No.3 proposing to initiate disciplinary action against the applicant, praying for the following reliefs:-
i) The letter dated 1.2.2011 Annex A/1 issued by respondent No.3 may be declared arbitrary, capricious, bad in law and quashed and set aside.
ii) The respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to decide the representation/appeal of the applicant and also review the case of respondent No.5 based on documents and evidence adduced in Disciplinary proceedings and provide by respondent No.4.
iii) Any other directions and orders, which are, deem proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be allowed to the applicant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on the occasion of Dhulandi dated 1.3.2010, the applicant was not present at his house and in his absence, respondent No.5 alongwith his friends created a nuisance with the wife of the applicant in the house of the applicant in drunken state. The applicant and his wife lodged complaint to the Principal on 8.3.2010 (Ann.A/2). After receiving the complaint, the Principal issued charge sheet to respondent No.5 and after holding enquiry, respondent No.5 was awarded punishment of stoppage of three substantive increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 15.4.2010.
3. Aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the order dated 15.4.2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, respondent No.5 submitted appeal to respondent No.4 which was forwarded by respondent No. 4 to respondent No.3 vide letter dated 18.5.2010. Respondent No.3 set-aside the order dated 15.4.2010 on technical grounds vide order dated 5.1.2011. Against this order, the applicant submitted representation/appeal dated 18.1.2011 to respondent No.2 alleging malafide against respondent No.3. It is alleged that the respondents have not considered the representation of the applicant and on the contrary disciplinary action has been ordered to be taken against the applicant vide impugned order dated 1.2.2011.
4. Having considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned order dated 1.2.2011, it appears that it is internal correspondence between the Assistant Commissioner, Regional Office, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya (KV), Jhalawar, by which after considering the statement of the employees of the KV with reference to the allegation against the applicant, the Principal was directed to initiate disciplinary action against the applicant as per provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
5. It is stated at Bar that in view of the ex-parte interim stay granted by this Tribunal on 3.3.2011, no enquiry has been initiated against the applicant pursuant to letter dated 1.2.2011 and no charge sheet has been issued to the applicant as this Tribunal vide ex-parte interim order stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 1.2.2011. Although, this Tribunal vide its order dated 1.6.2011 after having heard the respective parties on MA No.135/2011 directed the official respondents to apprise the Tribunal with regard to the factual aspects of the enquiry and liberty was given to the respondents to initiate enquiry as directed by the Tribunal, but may not pass final order till the next date of hearing.
6. The direction issued by this Tribunal to initiate disciplinary action against respondent No.5 has been strongly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and it is stated that the applicant has no locus to seek direction from this Tribunal to initiate enquiry against respondent No.5 afresh and relief claimed by the applicant for reviewing the case of respondent No.5 in this OA cannot be granted.
7. We have thoroughly considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully perused the material available on record as well as the impugned letter dated 1.2.2011 and the statement at Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that pursuant to letter dated 1.2.2011 enquiry has not been initiated. We are of the view that in view of the letter dated 1.2.2011 if any enquiry is initiated against the applicant, the applicant has every right to raise all sort of objections which are raised here in this OA with regard to initiating enquiry against respondent No.5 against whom the applicant had made complaint but no cause of action is made available to the applicant on the basis of internal correspondence vide letter dated 1.2.2011.
8. However, the applicant is always at liberty to challenge the memorandum of charge sheet, if any, issued pursuant to the letter dated 1.2.2011, but at this stage we find no merit in this OA and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs.
9. In view of the aforesaid observations, the ex-parte interim order dated 3.3.2011 is hereby vacated.
(ANIL KUMAR) (JUSTICE K.S.RATHORE) Admv. Member Judl. Member R/