Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Bharat Singh Rawat S/O Kundan Singh ... vs Union Of India Through on 23 January, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.190 of 2012 Reserved on : 19th January, 2012 Date of decision : 23rd January, 2012 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Bharat Singh Rawat S/o Kundan Singh Rawat, R/o H.No.10/36, 3rd Floor, Amrit Puri-B, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065. Applicant ( By Shri D. C. Vohra, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Foreign Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi-110011. 2. Joint Secretary (CNV) & Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Central Secretariat, South Block, New Delhi-110011. Respondents O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Sequel to a departmental enquiry, the applicant has been dismissed from service vide Presidential order dated 06.12.2010 (Annexure A-1). His petition for review against the order aforesaid has been dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2011 (Annexure A-32, wrongly mentioned in the relief clause as Annexure A-2). These are the orders which are under challenge in the present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. We have heard the learned counsel representing the applicant and with his assistance examined the records of the case. Normally, we issue notice in almost every case of punishment. However, the present case, it appears to us, needs to be dismissed in limine. Perusal of the enquiry report would manifest that the applicant was departmentally proceeded on three articles of charge. The imputations leveled against the applicant are as follows:
ARTICLE-1 Sh. Rawat had mentioned Smt. Kusum Rawat as his wife in his leave applications dated 16.01.06, addressed to Under Secretatry (SKC). However, while applying for a duplicate CGHS card in lieu of his lost one vide his note received in PC Section on 18.09.06, he enclosed a copy of FIR (no.497 dated 13.09.06) lodged with Sarojini Nagar P.S. by him that showed one Ms. Vidyotma as his wife. Although he filed a petitions with the Court of District Judge, Patiala House for dissolution of his marriage with Smt. Kusum Rawat only on 23.07.09, Shri Rawat had shown Smt. Vidyotma as his wife in the following government documents.
a) Sh. B.S. Rawat, vide his request dated 19.09.2006, applied for issue of an official passport in respect of Ms. Vidyotma Rawat as his wife. The application form in respect of Ms, Vidyotma Rawat for the issue of an official passport indicated as her spouse. Accordingly, an official passport (No. O-1144812) was issued in favour of Ms. Vidyotma Rawat.
After obtaining an official dependent members & domestic assistants in Air passage proforma for Transfer while booking air passage to E/I Bogota vide his note dated 08.12.2006.
In the note dated 22.06.07 submitted alongwith his transfer TA Claim, Sh Rawat had indicated details of journey performed by him and his wife and had enclosed used airticket and boarding pass issue in respect of Ms Vidyotma Rawat as proof of journey. Thus clearly indicating that Mrs. Vidyotma Rawat accompanied him to Bogota as his wife.
At the time of transfer from E/I Bogota, Sh. Rawat in his note dated 10.09.2007 again mentioned Mrs. Vidyotma Rawat as his wife while returning Identity Cards issued by local foreign office.
While working in E/I Bogota, Sh. Bharat Singh Rawat claimed reimbursement of expenditure incurred on the treatment of Vidyotma Rawat as his wife.
The above documents dearly establish the fact that he had contracted a second marriage while his first wife is still living in violation of Rule 21 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-II Sh. B.S. Rawat, vide his note dated 19.09.2006, requested for issue of an official passport to Ms. Vidyotma Rawat as his wife. The application form in respect of Mrs. Vidyotma Rawat for the issue of an official passport mentioned Sh. Bharat Singh Rawat as her spouse. Accordingly, an official passport (No. O-1144812) was issued in favour of Ms. Vidyotma Rawat. After an official passport having been issued in her favour, Sh Rawat as included the name of Mrs. Vidyotma Rawat in the details of official dependent members & domestic assistants in Air passage proforma for Transfer while booking air passge on transfer to Bogota vide his request dated 08.12.2006. In the note dated 22.06.07, submitted alongwith his transfer TA Claim at E/I Bogota, Sh. Rawat had mentioned details of journey performed by him and his wife and had enclosed used air-ticket and boarding pass issued in respect of Ms. Viyotma Rawat.
Thus Mrs. Vidyotma Rawat accompanied Sh. Bharat Singh Rawat to E/I Bogota as his wife on government expense.
ARTICLE-II While working in E/I Bogota, Sh. Bharat Singh Rawat claimed following reimbursement of expenditure incurred on treatment of Smt. Vidyotma Rawat as his wife:
S. No. Claim date Amount claimed (Pesos) Amount approved Pesos IRs.
1. 28/02/2007 609200 554200 11445 60 of 03/2007
2. 15/03/2007 572600 572600 11413 67 of 03/2007
3. 15/05/2007 460000 460000 9566 *74 of 08/2007
4. 06/09/2007 5000000 5000000 96957 38 of 09/2007
5. 26/09/2007 645080 645080 121890 65 of 09/2007 *Also included reimbursement of expenditure in respect of Sh. Rawat Thus, Sh. Bharat Singh Rawat, Assistant claimed reimbursement of Rs. 141890/- on the medical treatment of his non-entitled second wife, Smt. Vidyotma Rawat. [[ It appears that the enquiry officer would record no evidence, as the applicant made a candid confession of his guilt. Under the caption Assessment and analysis of evidence, the enquiry officer has observed as follows:
Since the Charged Officer has admitted all the Articles of Charge in the chargesheet vide Memorandum No.Q/Vigl./842/12/2009 dated 18.2.2010 issued to him by the Disciplinary Authority, during the Preliminary Hearing, unconditionally and in absolute terms, all the charges against him stand proved. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer on the three articles of charge read as follows:
Article-I : Held as Proved Article-II : Held as Proved Article-III : Held as Proved. It appears that for the first time the applicant, when furnished with copy of the enquiry report, in his representation against the same, stated that his unconditional acceptance of all the three charges was dictated by officers of the Ministry and that he complied with the instructions as a loyal officer. This aspect of the case has been dealt with by the disciplinary authority by observing that Case records however, clearly show that during the course of oral inquiry Shri Rawat was categorically asked by the IO about his admitting or denying the charges, as evident from the Daily Order Sheet dated 29.04.2010 duly signed by IO, PO and CO, and that he had accepted all three articles of charge unconditionally and in absolute terms, before the Inquiry Officer, by way of a hand-written note. The other pleas taken by the applicant have also been dealt with by the disciplinary authority. The impugned order dated 06.12.2010 would further reveal that before coming to the conclusion of guilt and the quantum of punishment, UPSC was consulted. In the review petition filed by the applicant also, a speaking and reasoned order came to be passed.
3. Learned counsel representing the applicant would first contend that the applicant was forced to sign on dotted lines, and, therefore, accepted his delinquency. The learned counsel, when confronted as to how it shall be possible for this Tribunal to go into the question of the applicant signing on dotted lines, as that would be a disputed question of fact and there may not be much scope to interfere with the same as the confession of guilt came to be made by the applicant in his own handwriting, would contend that be that as it may, i.e., even if the applicant had admitted his guilt, there had to be an enquiry on the charges framed against him. The applicant was departmentally proceeded against under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1965). In view of sub-rule (10) of rule 14 of the Rules aforesaid, the inquiring authority is to return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the Government servant pleads guilty. The question of recording evidence so as to bring home the delinquency against the employee would arise only if there is denial to the charges that may have been framed against him. We rather feel that the enquiry officer would have no choice but for to record findings on the articles of charge on which the employee concerned may have pleaded guilty.
5. The second and the only other contention raised by the learned counsel representing the applicant is that the punishment of dismissal from service is too severe, and is not commensurate to the charges proved against the applicant. We find no merit in this contention either. If it perhaps was a case only of re-marrying, to which the applicant pleaded guilty, we might have given a serious thought to the contention of the learned counsel as noted above. The facts of the case would, however, show that the applicant before even filing a petition for dissolution of marriage with his first wife Smt. Kusum Rawat, had started showing Ms. Vidyotma Rawat as his wife in the official documents. Even though, the applicant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on 23.07.2009, but he had made a request prior in point of time on 19.09.2006 for issue of an official passport in respect of Ms. Vidyotma Rawat as his wife. In the note dated 22.06.2007 submitted along with his transfer TA claim, the applicant had indicated details of journey performed by him and his wife and enclosed air tickets and boarding pass issued in respect of his second wife as proof of journey. At the time of his transfer from E/I Bogota, the applicant in his note dated 10.09.2007 again mentioned Ms. Vidyotma Rawat as his wife while returning identity cards issued by the local foreign office, and while working in E/I Bogota, he claimed reimbursement of expenditure incurred on the treatment of Ms. Vidyotma as his wife. The article of charge is not only as regards the second marriage while the first marriage was still subsisting, but also taking his second wife to his place of posting and claiming reimbursement for her medical treatment as well. Present is thus not a case where the punishment inflicted upon the applicant may be shockingly disproportionate to his proved guilt.
6. Finding no merit in this Original Application, the same is dismissed in limine.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/