Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Kumar Jain S/O Raj Kumar Jain vs Union Of India Through on 14 July, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI O.A. NO.1336/2008 This the 14th day of July, 2008 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) Anil Kumar Jain S/O Raj Kumar Jain, R/O M-108 Observatory Compound, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. Applicant ( By Shri A. K. Bhakta, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Director General of Meteorology, India Meteorological Department, Ministry of Earth Science, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 2. Secretary, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Mahasagar Bhawan, Block 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 3. Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. 4. Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 5. Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi-110004. Respondents O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Anil Kumar Jain, the applicant herein, was appointed as Meteorologist Grade-II and thus became a member of the Indian Meteorological Service Group A and posted under administrative authority of the Director General of Meteorology on January 28, 1984 after successfully completing one year training as trainee Meteorologist Grade-II. It is the case of the applicant that he became patient of psychic disease diagnosed by medical authorities of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi by the year 2001 being under continuous state of stress since 1990 when he was posted to Delhi from Agartala. The applicant who claims to be having excellent credentials as a scientist and the skill shown by him during the course of his service, states that the cause of his distress was that his colleagues and seniors being jealous of his merits and skill, became against him. It is his case that he was denied promotion as Director in 1997, and that he was harassed by his seniors each time he exhibited specialized skill and knowledge, as also that his family deserted him in early 2001. This Tribunal, in the context of the controversy involved in the present Original Application, would not think it necessary to make mention of other averments of the applicant with regard to his having performed various acts of excellence during the course of his service. The applicant, sequel to a departmental enquiry held against him, has since been compulsorily retired from service, and the facts leading to his compulsory retirement from service may thus be only relevant for disposing of the present Application.
2. It is revealed from the pleadings made in the Application and the accompanying documents that the applicant was charge sheeted for remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty. Articles I and II subject matter of charge against him read as follows:
Article-I That the said Shri Anil Kumar Jain, while functioning as Meteorologist Grade-I in the Satellite Meteorological Unit in the office of Director General of Meteorology remained absent from duty which was unauthorized on many occasions in the past and at present is continuing to be absent since 8.5.2002. OMs were sent at his known address asking him to join duty but were received back from the postal authority with remarks shifted and no such person etc. Till date, he has neither joined his duties nor informed about his whereabouts. He, thereby remained continuously missing since 8th May 2002.
Shri Jain holding a senior Class-I position, instead of setting a high standard of exemplary conduct and decorum for his subordinate staff, on the contrary behaved in a highly irresponsible manner and blatantly defied the office norm by remaining absent without sanction of leave and changing his address without informing his HQ. He has committed misconduct as per leave Rule 7(1) and 25(2) by remaining unauthorisedly absent.
By the above acts Shri Anil Kumar Jain has exhibited insincerity, lack of devotion to duty and gross misconduct unbecoming of a Govt. servant, thus has contravened Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-II Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Meteorologist Grade-I furnished false address during his leave period applied for. As per his leave applications dated 07.05.2002 seeking earned leave from 08.05.2002 to 10.05.2002 (three days) he had mentioned his address as below:
M-108, Meteorological Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
But all the postal communications sent to him on above address were returned back with remarks that No such person was there. Thus Shri Jain intentionally and deliberately furnished false information regarding his leave address which is against CCS (Conduct) Rules. Enquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 16.3.2006, who submitted his report to the disciplinary authority that both the charges stood proved against the applicant. The disciplinary authority accepted the report and copy thereof was forwarded to the applicant at his last known address. The same was, however, received back undelivered. Before a reference was made to the Union Public Service Commission for its advice, the case was submitted to the Minister for Earth Sciences to record a provisional conclusion regarding the penalty to be imposed on the applicant as the President was the disciplinary authority in his case. The Minister, after considering the findings of the enquiry officer, gravity of misconduct and other relevant materials, provisionally concluded that penalty of compulsory retirement may be imposed on the applicant. The Commission also examined the case carefully and opined that articles of charge I and II were proved against the applicant. Taking into consideration the relevant facts of the case, and gravity of misconduct, the Commission concluded that the ends of justice would be met if penalty of compulsory retirement is imposed on the applicant. The President, in consideration of all the facts, as mentioned above, ordered compulsory retirement of the applicant vide order dated 29.5.2008. It is this order that has been challenged in the present Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
3. It appears that prior to filing of the present Application, the applicant had filed OA No.2322/2007 which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 7.2.2008. By the time the aforesaid OA came up for disposal, obviously the order of compulsory retirement had not been passed. It also appears that since there was no order suspending the applicant during pendency of the enquiry, the applicant craved indulgence of this Tribunal to allow him to join duties. The short order that came to be passed on 7.2.2008 in the OA aforesaid reads as follows:
Relief 8(ii) of the OA cannot be granted by a Single Bench. Moreover, applicant has joined his duty, which is allowed by the respondents vide their letter dated 4.2.2008. OA stands disposed of with a direction that on appraisal of any disciplinary proceedings against him and supply of the documents thereof, applicant shall be at liberty to assail it in an appropriate proceeding.
4. The applicant while challenging order dated 29.5.2008 (Annexure A-1) has not placed on records the memo vide which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, nor the articles of charge, nor the report of the enquiry officer, nor the order of disciplinary authority accepting the report, nor even the opinion of the UPSC and the provisional proposal of the disciplinary authority to visit him with the penalty of compulsory retirement.
5. The applicant has not brought on record the required documents. In these circumstances, we could either direct the applicant to place on record the relevant documents or else could issue notice to the respondents to ascertain correct facts of the case, but inasmuch as, in yet another Application filed by the applicant bearing OA No.1342/2008 which pertains to regularizing three periods of absence of the applicant, the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents in the earlier OA No.2322/2007 is available, we do not feel it necessary to either direct the applicant to produce the relevant documents on record or to ascertain the facts from the respondents. It appears from the records, and particularly of OA No.1342/2008 that the applicant was holding a responsible senior Group A post. He remained absent from duty unauthorisedly without seeking permission or sending intimation with regard to his whereabouts for a period of five and a half years. He initially proceeded on 30 days earned leave on the ground of taking care of his younger brother who was stated to be suffering from psychological disorder. After expiry of his leave, he neither reported for duty nor applied for extension of leave. He was asked to join duty vide memorandum dated 24.9.2001 but he did not join. He was again asked to join duty by 10.12.2001 vide memorandum dated 29.11.2001 failing which he would render himself liable for disciplinary action. He joined duty on 6.12.2001. After so joining, he applied for 126 days earned leave for his absence from 2.8.2001 to 5.12.2001 stating the ground as his own illness Bipolar Disorder (Psychic disorder). He, however, did not submit any supporting documents with regard to his illness. The leave applied for by him for 126 days from 2.8.2001 to 5.12.2001 was not granted by the competent authority and was treated as dies non without break in service. The applicant again remained absent from duty without any information for 44 days from 28.2.2002 to 12.4.2002. He joined on 15.4.2002 and applied for 44 days earned leave indicating the reason preparatory to resignation. His leave was not recommended and the period from 28.2.2002 to 14.4.2002 was again treated as dies non without break in service. The applicant again remained absent from duty after applying for 3 days earned leave from 8.5.2002 to 10.5.2002 on the ground of arranging funds for personal purpose. Since then he neither reported for duty nor informed his whereabouts. Memorandum dated 29.5.2002 was sent at his residential address to join duty by 3.6.2002, but the same was received back from the postal authorities with remarks Always Close. Copy of the memorandum was also pasted at his door as no one was present at his residence. Another memorandum dated 5.12.2002 was sent at his known two addresses asking him to join duty by 13.12.2002 which was also received back with remarks Shifted and No Such Person respectively. A telegram message dated 21.1.2003 was again sent at his known addresses asking him to join duty by 27.1.2003. During all these periods the applicant neither joined duties nor informed the respondents of his whereabouts, thus remaining continuously missing for a period of five and a half years since May, 2002. It is only on 19.11.2007 that the applicant requested for joining duty in the office of Director General of Meteorology on his return from unauthorized absence. His request was referred to Ministry of Earth Sciences for advice. On advice from the Ministry, his request was referred to DOP&T on 3.1.2008 for their further considered advice, since the applicant had not been under suspension. The applicant meanwhile, as mentioned above, filed OA No.2322/2007 before this Tribunal, which came to be disposed of in the manner indicated above. It appears that the applicant was not placed under suspension and has now been inflicted the penalty of compulsory retirement. All that has been urged in support of the present Application is that all this while the applicant remained sick unable to join duties. To a specific question put to learned counsel representing the applicant as to whether the applicant ever joined enquiry proceedings, it is stated that the applicant was not able to do so being physically unfit. The reasons stated by the applicant for his remaining mentally depressed have already been mentioned above.
6. From the material available on record, it is clear, and which fact is not in dispute, that the applicant who was holding a responsible Group A post did absent from duty for a long period of five and a half years. There may be some reasons stated by him that on two occasions after remaining absent for some time, he joined duty and prayed for regularizing the period of his absence, but the applicant at no stage thereafter even thought it proper to intimate his office that he was unable to attend his duties and had gone into depression or suffering from any other ailment. Far from applying for leave, the applicant would not even intimate the authorities the reasons for his staying away from office. At no stage during the course of enquiry he bothered to intimate the concerned authorities that he was unable to attend his duties. Repeated efforts made by the respondents to serve him proved abortive. The applicant did not care even to intimate the change of his residential address. Nothing at all has been brought on record to show that the applicant was so seriously sick so as not even to apprise the authorities that he was unable to attend his duties. The applicant has only placed on record prescription of some medicines at Annexure A-4(i) from CGHS, wherein under the column Disease, Bipolar Disorder has been mentioned. The same, however, pertains to May, 1997, after which concededly the applicant joined duties for some time. Yet another prescription at Annexure A-4(ii) which shows that the applicant had been referred to Psychiatrist, Safdarjung Hospital, pertains to the year 1998.
7. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, we are of the considered view that the concerned authorities who were not even intimated about the physical disorder which the applicant might have gone through, had no option but for to hold the charges against the applicant as proved. We are further of the view that even at this stage the applicant has brought no substantial evidence that may show that he was in fact suffering from any mental disorder or that his physical condition was such that he was not even able to intimate the office that he was unable to attend his duties. In wake of the fact that the applicant remained on wholly unauthorized absence for such a long period, we find no infirmity in the order dated 29.5.2008 (Annexure A-1) compulsorily retiring him from service.
8. Finding no merit in this Application, we dismiss the same in limine.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/