Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Shri C Liama Mizo vs Indian Council For Cultural Relations ... on 24 February, 2023
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
(Circuit Court at Shillong)
Original Application No. 043/000234/2017
HON'BLE SMT. URMITA DATTA SEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SUMEET JERATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Sri C. Liana Mizo
S/o Late C. Siama, Resident of ICAR
Umiam Complex, P.O. and P.S: Barapani,
Meghalaya, Pin - 793103.
......Applicant
By Advocate Sri H K Das
-V/s-
1. The secretary,
Indian Council of Agricultural
Research, Ministry of Agriculture,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Director General,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Under Secretary (Vigilance),
ICAR, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110001.
4. The Director, Indian Council of Agriculture
Research Complex for NEH Region, Umroi Road,
Umiam - 793103, Meghalaya.
.....Respondents
O.A.No. 043/000234/2017
2
By Advocate Smt. Jupitara Das, ICAR SC
Date of Hearing: 02.02.2023 Date of Order:24.02.2023
ORDER
PER URMITA DATTA (SEN), MEMBER (J):
The instant O.A. has been filed by the applicant praying for the following relief(s):-
"8.1. To quash and set aside the impugned appellate order dated 17.04.2017 (Annexure-A/23) with all consequential benefits.
8.2 To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 09.12.2016 (Annexure-A/21) passed by the disciplinary authority imposing penalty of dismissal from service upon the applicant with all consequential benefits.
8.3 To direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in his service restoring all back wages, seniority, promotion and all other consequential benefits.
8.4 Cost of the application.
8.5 Any other relief/reliefs that the applicant in the facts and circumstances of the case would be entitled to."
2. As per the applicant after a due process of selection he was initially appointed as Mali vide ICAR Memorandum No. RC (R) 29/81 dated 14.07.1982 (Annexure-A/1) and as per provision of Rule-6 of O.A.No. 043/000234/2017 3 Technical Services of ICAR and on recommendation of every five year Assessment Committee, he was promoted to the grade of Technical-1, Technical-2, Technical-3, Technical-4 and lastly promoted as Technical-5. As per the applicant, after completion of 30 years of service, he was served with an order dated 17.10.2011 (Annexure-A/10), whereby he was asked to inform in which year he had undertaken the HSLC Examination and he was also asked to submit all the original certificates. In response to the said letter dated 17.10.2011 (Annexure-A/10), the applicant on the very next day i.e., on 18.10.2011(Annexure-A/11) informed the authority that he undertook the HSLC Examination in the year 1982 from Kangvai High School, Manipur and submitted all the certificates related to HSLC Examination. Thereafter, the respondents issued order dated 22.09.2012 (Annexure-A/12), by which the applicant was placed under suspension. As per the applicant, his certificate was genuine and after O.A.No. 043/000234/2017 4 thorough scrutiny of his certificates, he was granted initial appointment and also earned several promotions thereafter.
3. Subsequently, aggrieved with the prolonged suspension, he had filed an O.A. No.347/2012(Annexure- A/13), which was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 26.02.2013 after quashing the suspension order dated 22.09.2012 (Annexure -A/12) with a further direction to reinstate the applicant in service. However, non-compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 26.02.2013, the applicant has filed C.P. No.22/2013. After filing of CP No.22/2013, the applicant was allowed to join in service vide order dated 30.04.2014 (Annexure-A/14), accordingly, he joined on 03.05.2013(Annexure-A/15). Thereafter, again on 05.01.2013(Annexure-A/16), he was served with a Memorandum of Charges under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA)Rules alleging that he showed negligence and irresponsibility by submitting false HSLC pass O.A.No. 043/000234/2017 5 certificate to the office at the time of his selection as Technical-1.
4. It has been further submitted that based on such faulty verification, two letters dated 14.10.2011 & 01.09.2012 issued by the Controller of Examination, and Deputy Secretary of Board of Secondary Education, Manipur. However, they have not been made witness to corroborate the said documents. Before the Inquiry Officer the applicant had submitted that though he had passed in the year 1982, however, his candidature was verified for the year 1983. It was categorically submitted by the applicant before the Inquiry Officer that the letters dated 14.10.2011 and 01.09.2012 issued by the Controller of Examination, and Deputy Secretary of Board of Secondary Education, Manipur were never been proved by the author of the documents during inquiry. The applicant had filed the written defense statement dated14.01.2013 (Annexure-A/17) and his written reply dated 18.04.2014 (Annexure-A/18).
O.A.No. 043/000234/2017 6
5. Subsequently, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 24.10.2014 (Annexure-A/19), which was communicated to the applicant vide order dated 24.04.2015 (Annexure-A/20). However, from the perusal of the said Inquiry Report, it would transpires that the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report on the basis of the communication dated 14.10.2011 and 01.09.2012 issued by the Controller of Examination and Deputy Secretary of Board of Secondary Education, Manipur without being corroborated by the author of the said letters. Even the Inquiry Officer committing serious illegality, by taken into consideration the allegation of erroneous verification followed by erroneous report of the Controller of the Examination communicated through letter dated 03.08.2013, which was neither the part of the listed documents in the Charge Sheet nor was placed during the regular inquiry therefore, the total inquiry proceedings has been vitiated.
O.A.No. 043/000234/2017 7
6. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of such erroneous inquiry report passed a non- speaking impugned order dated 19.11.2016 (Annexure- A/21) imposing the penalty of "dismissal from service".
7. Being aggrieved with the impugned Order dated 19.11.2016, the applicant had submitted an appeal dated 30.11.2016(Annexure-A/22) before the Appellate Authority, where he was subsequently stated that the report of the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority were bad in law as they relied on the documents which never corroborated by the author of those documents. Even some other documents were relied upon which was not part of the show cause. However, the Appellate Authority mechanically had confirmed the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and passed the impugned Appellate Order dated 17.04.2017 (Annexure-A/23). Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the instant Original Application.
O.A.No. 043/000234/2017 8
8. As per the applicant, the Inquiry Officer committed serious illegality by relying on the letter dated 03.08.2013 issued by the Board, which was neither part of the charge sheet nor the inquiry procedure. By the said letter the Inquiry Officer made attempt to prove that in the year 1982 also the applicant's name was not found against his Roll No.4840. However, the said letter dated 03.08.2013 was never served upon the applicant and not part of the inquiry, which is a gross violation of principles of natural justice.
9. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank & Ors. 2009 2 SCC 570 wherein it has been specifically held that the Departmental proceeding being a quasi-judicial proceeding, the charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found proved by corroborating the same.
O.A.No. 043/000234/2017 9
10. It has been submitted by the applicant that since he had worked for a long time, the order of dismissal is too harsh for the same. In support of his submission he has referred the following judgments :-
(i). Iqbal Nath Sharma(Dead) by Legal
Representatives versus Union of India and
Another, (2016) 14 SCC 243
(ii). Union of India Vs. Lala Prasad Singh, 2018(1) GLT 837;
(iii) Chand Mahammad Vs. Indian Oil
Corporation, 1998 (3) GLT 532
11. The respondents have filed their written
statement wherein it is stated that the applicant was asked to submit his original certificate to the respondents way back in the year 2000, when the respondents received a letter dated 20.06.2000 (Annexure-1) from one Mr. Rual Khuana of Nongrim Hills, Shillong wherein various allegations were labelled against the applicant and one of the allegation was that the applicant had submitted false certificate while joining the Indian O.A.No. 043/000234/2017 10 Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR). Mr. Rual Khuana also asked the respondent to enquire into the matter, and basing on the said letter the respondent issued letter dated 30.06.2000(Annexure-2) to the applicant asking him to submit his HSLC and all other relevant documents at the earliest.
12. In response to the said letter the applicant replied that his educational certificates were at his home in Mizoram and it will require some time to get the same from Mizoram and would submit in the office of the respondent. Again vide office letter dated 30.04.2009, the applicant was asked to submit his original certificates.
13. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a school leaving certificate from one Mizo High School, Madanrting, Shillong. To verify the genuineness of the certificate, the Administrative Officer, ICAR vide letter dated 07.05.2009 and 15.06.2009 requested the O.A.No. 043/000234/2017 11 Headmaster of the said school to verify the said certificate and send a confirmation regarding the authenticity of the certificate. In response to the said letters the Headmaster vide letter dated 23.06.2009 informed that the verification of the certificate could not be done as the school has no record prior to the year 1988. The applicant was again asked to submit all his original documents by the respondent office vide letter dated 30.06.2011.
14. Thereafter, on 02.08.2011, the applicant submitted his educational documents before the respondent office. To verify the authenticity of the certificates the respondents office vide letter dated 24.08.2011 requested the Headmaster of Kangvai Secondary School, Churachandpur, Manipur to verify the same.
15. Further, the Controller of Examinations, Board of Secondary Education, Manipur vide letter dated O.A.No. 043/000234/2017 12 14.10.2011 informed the respondent office that no relevant records could be traced with the Board regarding the name of the applicant. Thereafter the respondents issued letter dated 17.10.2011 asking the applicant to clarify the year and place of HSLC Examination. The applicant vide letter dated 27.10.2011 replied that he had cleared his Board of Secondary Examination from Manipur in the year 1982. However, the respondents received a letter dated 01.09.2012 from the Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Manipur that the applicant did not appear in any of the examinations for the year 1982 and 1983. Thus the applicant was asked to show cause vide Office Order dated 22.09.2012 and also put under suspension.
16. It has been further submitted that since the letter of the Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Manipur and the Controller of examinations, Board of Secondary Education, Manipur has made it clear that the applicant never appeared before the O.A.No. 043/000234/2017 13 HSLC examination, therefore there is no necessity to appoint any external agency as from the documents it is proved that the applicant had submitted a false certificate.
17. We have heard the parties and perused the records.
18. It is alleged that while the applicant was working at ICAR, had produced the false pass certificate for selection for the post of Technical-1 and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964.
19. However, as per the applicant though in the Charge Sheet the respondents had referred two letters i.e. 14.10.2011 and 01.09.2012 issued by the Controller of Examination and Deputy Secretary of Board of Secondary Education, Manipur respectively and has relied upon the documents on the basis of the content of the said letter wherein it had been declared that the O.A.No. 043/000234/2017 14 applicant name against his Roll No.4840 was not found for the year, 1983. However, arbitrarily the same documents were not corroborated by the authority but on the basis of the said letters the Inquiry Officer come to a conclusion that the applicant had submitted a false certificate.
20. Undoubtedly the departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding and it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in their different judgements. The Inquiry Officer who performs a quasi-judicial function, the charges levelled against the delinquent officer must have been found to be proved by corroborating the same. Merely tendering the documents did not prove the contents therefore, no reliance can be made on that. In the case of Mani Shankar v. Union of India, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 484, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the departmental proceedings being a quasi-judicial one and although the provision of the Evidence Act is not applicable to the said proceeding, O.A.No. 043/000234/2017 15 however, the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with.
21. Further, in the instant case it has been submitted by the applicant that the Inquiry Officer had relied upon one letter dated 05.01.2013 (Annexure-A/16), which is neither the part of the Show Cause Notice nor served to the applicant, but the Inquiry Officer had given his findings on the basis of the same which is beyond the scope of the charge sheet. It is also established law that the Inquiry Officer is not permitted to go beyond the scope of the charge sheet and any punishment imposed on the basis of the findings, which is not the part of the charge sheet is wholly illegal in that case.
22. In view of the above, in our considered view, both the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 09.12.2016 and Appellate Authority's order dated 17.11.2017 are liable to be set aside and quashed being not sustainable in law. Accordingly, we set aside and quash both the O.A.No. 043/000234/2017 16 orders dated 09.12.2016 & 17.11.2017. Respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant forthwith notionally in his original position till his date of retirement as he would have retired in the meantime in the year 2019, and to conduct denovo enquiry granting him reasonable opportunity as per rules and settled principles of law and to conclude the departmental proceeding. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Applicant shall be granted consequential benefits as per the outcome of the departmental proceeding.
23. The OA is disposed of with the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
(DR SUMEET JERATH) (URMITA DATTA SEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/KB/BB
O.A.No. 043/000234/2017
17
O.A.No. 043/000234/2017
18
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - GUWAHATI BENCH ORDER SHEET 16.05.2023 SHRI C LIAMA MIZO M.A./51/2023 ( Shillong ) V/S O.A./234/2017 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE RESEARCH ITEM NO: 19 Present:
FOR APPLICANTS(S) : Sri H. K. Das FOR RESPONDENTS(S) : Smt. Jupi Tara Das, ICAR Adv. Notes of The Registry Order of The Tribunal
The instant M.A. has been filed by the applicant praying for correction of inadvertent typographical mistake occurred in the 2nd, 3rd & 6th line of para 22 of the order/judgment dated 24.02.2023 passed in O.A. 234/2017.
2. Sri H.K. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that due to clerical mistake/typographical error, the applicant mentioned the date of impugned order issued by the disciplinary authority as 09.12.2016 instead of 19.11.2016 in the prayer portion at paragraph 8.2 of the O.A. 234/2017 which resulted in wrong recording of dates in the final judgment dated 24.02.2023. Sri Das has further drawn our attention to the Annexure-A/21 of O.A. 234/2017 i.e., the order of the disciplinary authority which is dated 19.11.2016 whereas, it has been typed in 2nd and 6th line at para 22 of order/judgment as 09.12.2016. Similary, the appellate authority's order date is 17.04.2017(Annexure-A/23), whereas it has been recorded as 17.11.2017 in the 3rd and 6th line at para 22 of said judgment. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for necessary correction of the date of disciplinary authority's order as well as appellate authority's orders as 19.11.2016 and 17.04.2017 in the 2nd, 3rd and 6th line at para 22 of the said judgment in place of 09.12.2016 and 17.11.2017 O.A.No. 043/000234/2017 19 respectively.
3. Smt. Jupi Tara Das, learned ICAR Adv. appearing on behalf of the respondents has also endorsed the same.
4. We have heard the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
5. It is noted that though the date of disciplinary proceedings' order date is 19.11.2016 (Annexure-A/21 of O.A. 234/2017) and appellate authority's order date is 17.04.2017(Annexure-A/23 of O.A. 234/2017); however, inadvertently, it has been recorded as 09.12.2016 and 17.11.2017 respectively in the said judgment. Therefore, the dates in the 2nd, 3rd & 6th line at para 22 of the order/judgment dated 24.02.2023 passed in O.A. 234/2017 would be read as 19.11.2016 and 17.04.2017 in place of 09.12.2016 and 17.11.2017 and let this order be treated as part and parcel of original order dated 24.02.2023.
6. In view of the above, the instant M.A. is disposed of.
DR. SUMEET JERATH URMITA DATTA SEN
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SK/
O.A.No. 043/000234/2017