Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rakhi Mehra vs Ayush on 24 August, 2022
1
Item No. 1 OA 1252/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No. 1252/2022
This the 24th day of August, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Vasantrao More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Dr. Rakhi Mehra, Group „A‟
W/o Shri Manoj K. Mehra
Aged 56 years
R/o B-5/20, Basement
Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi-110029.
.. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Nikunj Arora for Mr. Ankur Chhibber)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Ayush
Government of India
GPO Complex
„B‟ Block, INA
New Delhi-110023.
2. The Central Council for Research in
Ayurvedic Sciences
Through its Director General
Jawaharlal Nehru Bhartiya Chikitsa
Evam Homeopathy Anusandhan Bhawan
61-65, Institutional Area
Opp. „D‟ Block, Janakpuri
New Delhi-110058.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. R.K. Jain)
2
Item No. 1 OA 1252/2022
O R D E R (ORAL)
Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member(A) The applicant joined as Research Officer under Ayush and was initially posted as Incharge of Tribal Research Health Project in Car-Nicobar. She was subsequently posted to Delhi. It is submitted that during 2002 to 2006, the respondents sought her explanation on certain alleged irregularities in connection with Transport Allowance, HRA, less payment of salary to the staff etc. The applicant replied to those memorandums. Subsequently, a Charge Memorandum dated 03.02.2009 was issued to her, to which a detailed reply was submitted. The respondents appointed an Inquiry Officer. In view of substantial delay in conducting of enquiry, the applicant approached the Hon‟ble High Court by filing WP(C) No. 7826/2015 seeking setting aside of Charge Memorandum dated 03.02.2009. The Hon‟ble High Court vide order dated 09.09.2015 disposed of the same, directing the respondents to complete the enquiry within four months. Subsequently, the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi extended the period for completion of the enquiry. The enquiry was subsequently completed and vide order dated 03.01.2017, copies of the report of the Inquiry Officer along with the view of the 3 Item No. 1 OA 1252/2022 Governing Body of CCRAS and 2nd Stage Advice of CVC were given to the applicant seeking her representation, if any. The applicant submitted her representation and the respondents vide order dated 24.03.2017 passed the order of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government. An appeal was preferred by the applicant on 24.04.2017. The respondents rejected her appeal vide order dated 14.08.2020.
2. It is contended by the applicant that the Inquiry Officer has not considered her submissions and also not taken into account various other facts. The applicant is challenging the Penalty Order dated 24.03.2017, whereby the applicant was awarded with major penalty of removal from service and also seeking quashing and setting aside of order passed in the appeal dated 14.08.2020, received by her on 24.02.2021.
3. Heard Mr. Nikunj Arora, proxy counsel for Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents, at the stage of admission.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Inquiry Officer has not clearly established the charges 4 Item No. 1 OA 1252/2022 as „proved‟ and various factors highlighted by the applicant in her defence have not been considered.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Charge Memorandum dated 03.02.2009 contains 7 articles of charge involving fraud, embezzlement and manipulating of cash vouchers, forging of signatures, retaining the amount of salary of the staff for herself, claiming wrongful claim of HRA, false claim of TA etc., which are of a very serious nature and by these acts, the applicant has exhibit lack of integrity and committed acts unbecoming of a public servant violating Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It is further submitted that most of the charges have been proved during the enquiry and that the applicant was provided reasonable opportunity to defend herself during the enquiry and thereafter by obtaining her representation, which has been duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.
6. Whereas the applicant has relied upon the judgments of this Tribunal and the Hon‟ble High Court, the learned counsel for the respondents has also drawn our attention to the judgments passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, Hon‟ble 5 Item No. 1 OA 1252/2022 High Court and this Tribunal in connection with the powers of judicial review of the Tribunal in disciplinary cases. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the judgment passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1895/2018.
7. We have heard the arguments. It is evident that the applicant was issued a Charge Memorandum for various irregularities on 03.02.2009. The Charge Memorandum includes 7 articles of charge, which are as under:
"ARTICLE-I That the said Dr. Rakhee Mehra while functioning as Assistant Research Officer Incharge of the Tribal Health Care Research Project, Car Nicobar during the period 1999 to 2002, committed fraud and embezzlement by manipulating cash voucher No.99264 dated 27.01.2000 in contingent bill No.CB/28-THCRP-CN/1999-2000 which was for Rs.2650/- but changed to Rs.3650/-.
The above said act of Dr. Rakhee Mehra exhibits her lack of integrity and is unbecoming of a public servant violating Rule 3(1))(i) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-II That during the month of February, 2002 while functioning in the aforesaid office, Dr. Rakhee Mehra had drawn the salary of Shri Thomas Michael, Driver of the Unit for the month of February, 2002 and shown the same as paid to him by forging his signature in acquittance roll.
The above said act of Dr. Rakhee Mehra exhibits her lack of integrity and is unbecoming of a public servant violating Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-III That during the month of February, 2002 while functioning in the aforesaid office, Dr. Rakhee 6 Item No. 1 OA 1252/2022 Mehra had drawn the full salary in respect of Shri Samuel Harry, UDC to the tune of Rs.7475/- and Shri Anthony Auswal, Peon to the tune of Rs.5155/- of the Unit for the month of February, 2002 and obtained their signatures on bank acquittance roll. She mentioned the full amount of salary drawn from Bank against each in the acquittance roll but disbursed them Rs.1020/- and Rs.1100/- respectively and retained the difference amount. She obtained their signature on the acquittance roll without mentioning the amount and put the amount at later stage to manage the different amount.
The above said act of Dr. Rakhee Mehra exhibits her lack of integrity and is unbecoming of a public servant contravening Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-IV That during the month of March, 2022, while functioning in the aforesaid office, Dr. Rakhee Mehra was transferred from Car Nicobar to CRI (Ay.), Delhi, with the instructions to hand over the charge of the Unit to Dr. P. Radhakrishnan, her successor, but she did not obey the orders of the Council.
The above said act of Dr. Rakhee Mehra exhibits her lack of devotion to duty and is unbecoming of a public servant violating Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-V That while functioning in the aforesaid office during 1999-2000, Dr. Rakhee Mehra had submitted three false T.A. claims in connection with her journey from Car Nicobar to Port Blair and back by giving forged documents claiming that the journey was performed by IAF Aircraft. Actually, the journey had never been performed by her.
The above said act of Dr. Rakhee Mehra exhibits her lack of integrity and is unbecoming of a public servant violating Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-VI That while submitting her application for the post of Assistant Research Officer (Ay.) during 1999 and subsequent to her selection to the post, Dr. Rakhee Mehra had submitted an incorrect date of birth and a forged 7 Item No. 1 OA 1252/2022 document in support of that. Subsequently, she mentioned a different date of birth in the attestation form after assuming the post. Further on 9.6.2008, she submitted the attested copy of matriculation certificate in which the date of birth mentioned is different from what she has intimated earlier.
The above said act of Dr. Rakhee Mehra exhibits her lack of integrity and is unbecoming of a public servant contravening Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-VII That the said Dr. Rakhee Mehra while functioning as Research Officer (Ay.)/Assistant Director (Ay.) from September‟02 to October‟06 had fraudulently drawn House Rent Allowance when she was residing in Government accommodation allotted to her husband during the aforesaid period.
The above said act of Dr. Rakhee Mehra exhibits her lack of integrity and is unbecoming of a public servant violating Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
8. The above Charge Memorandum was issued after receiving CVC advice for initiation of major penalty. It is observed from the inquiry report that all the articles of charge were thoroughly discussed in the inquiry report and reasonable opportunities were provided to the applicant to defend her case. The Inquiry Officer submitted his findings on 26.04.2016 in which Articles I to VI were held „proved‟ and Article VII was „partially proved‟. The Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Governing Body of CCRAS, accepted the findings of the inquiry report and recommended appropriate major penalty. The 8 Item No. 1 OA 1252/2022 2nd stage advice of the CVC was also sought. The CVC advised that as most of the charges have been proved, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority is advised to impose suitable major penalty on the applicant. It is also not disputed by the applicant that copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer, view of the Governing Body of the CCRAS and 2nd stage advice of the CVC were provided to her asking her to make representation, if any. Her representation dated 20.01.2017 was considered and it was decided by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Governing Body, CCRAS, to award major penalty of "removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government". The punishment was imposed vide impugned order dated 24.03.2017. An appeal preferred by the applicant was also considered by the Governing Body of CCRAS and rejected the same.
9. We find that the charges leveled against the applicant are of very grave and serious in nature. These charges have been proved during the enquiry and the Disciplinary Authority has considered all these aspects including the advice of the CVC and, finally, imposed the 9 Item No. 1 OA 1252/2022 penalty. An opportunity was again granted for filing an appeal, which was subsequently rejected. During the arguments, no new point could be brought out or highlighted which in any way indicates that the disciplinary proceedings have suffered from any irregularity or infirmity.
10. As far as the judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is concerned, it is well settled law that the power of judicial review is not an appeal and that the Courts will not act as an Appellate Court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record.
11. It may be worth mentioning that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, laid down the broad parameters for exercise of the judicial review. The same is extracted as under:
"13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; 10 Item No. 1 OA 1252/2022
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
12. In the abovementioned facts and circumstances and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for both the sides, at the admission stage itself, we are of the view that the disciplinary proceedings do not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity and there is no merit in the claim of the applicant seeking setting aside of the impugned orders dated 24.03.2017 and 14.08.2020.
13. The O.A. is thus devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Justice Ranjit Vasantrao More)
Member (A) Chairman
/jyoti/