Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Manish Vishnu Rahate vs M/O Science And Technology on 20 July, 2023
4 Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur. O.A, No. 2193/2018. Dated this Thursday, the 20" Day of fuly, 2023. Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Mem ber (J) Hon'ble Dr. Bhagwan Sahai, Member (A) Manish s/o Vishnu Rahate, Age about 33. years, Occupation: Service (Scientist fellow) R/o 25, Gandhi Ward, Kurkheda, Tah, Kurkheda, Distt. Gadchiroli, presently at C/o. Vishnujfi Vithobaji Rahate, Plot No. 94, Rukmini Nagar, New Subedar Layout, Nagpur-440024. . Applicant (By Mr. Shankar Borkute, Advocate) Versus - 1. The Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Science & en ee Technology Bhawan, Meharol Road, Govt. of India, New Delhi- 2. Council of Science and Industrial Research, (CSIR), through its Director General, Anusandhan Bhawan-2, Rafi Mare, New Delhi-1 10001. 3. National Environmental Engineering, Research Institute, through Hs Director, Nehru Marg, Opp: Central Jail, Wardha Road, Nagpur-440012 . . ... Respondents (By Ms. Gauri Venkatraman, Advocate) % ORDER (ORAL)
PER: JUSTICE M.G. SEWLIKAR, MEMBER (GJ).
This OA is filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicant is questioning lis termination by the order dated 3" April, 2014 passed by respondent no. 3 and modified by the Appellate Authority (R-2) vide its order dated 22' February, 2017.
ll. , Facts can be succinetly stated as under:
1.2. The applicant was appointed ons April, 2011 as Scientist Fellow (Range-l) on a tenure post for three years. A memorandum was issued calling upon him to explain as to why he had held Press Conference and other charges were also levelled against him. A memorandum was issued to him for his misconduct. Thereafter charge sheet was served on him. The charges against him are that on 30° July, 2013 he organised a Press Conference without permission of the competent authority and levelled falseAmfounded allegations against the institute that there was bias in selection to the post of Scientists, Group TV (2) and that injustice was done to OBC candidates in selection to Post Code No. 201, as none was found suitable. He approached the Rashtriya OBC Mukti Morcha and also participated in the Press Conference and alleged manipulation of norms on "part of the Appointment Committee at the behest 'of the applicant and demanded CBI inquiry into it. He was: present in person in the Press Conference and made wrong and unfounded statements regarding his non-
selection and disposal of hazardous chemicals by CSIR-NEERI without having standard operating procedure. The news items containing all these allegations appeared in five different news papers.
13. Another charge was that by his email dated 03" August, 2013 sent to the Director CSIR-NEERI, the applicant went to the extent of threatening that "there is more to follow" such reports and that he would continue to do the needful outside the gate of NEERI. Fourth charge was that on 1° August, 2013, he entered the premises of the institute alongwith the journalists/media persons and their O.B. van unauthorizedly and got done photographs/videoshooting of the. different places of the institute campus without any authority which is strictly prohibited. The Security guards, Security Supervisor and the General Manager of the Security Contractor on duty were threatened by the applicant not to intervene otherwise the consequences would be severe if he was stopped from taking the photographs/videography.
14. Fifth Charge was that he uploaded this video on "You Tube. IN" _ on 6" August, 2013, giving interview on the news channels levelling false allegations against the institute. (6) Sixth charge was that he produced the confidential document of NEERI audit, report on ISO 9001:2008 before the Press alleging that NEERI does not satisfy ISO standards. Statement of imputations was also given to him. Charge sheet was served on him on 4"
December, 2013. Inquiry Officer was appointed. Inquiry commenced on 3"
March, 2014 and it was completed on 24" March, 2014. The applicant did not participate in the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted its report and recommended dismissal of applicant from service. The Disciplinary Authority (R-3} accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and dismissed him applicant from service. i x ~*~ 1.5, The applicant preferred appeal on 3" November, 2015. The Appellate Authority on 22°" February, 2017 partly allowed his appeal. The sentence was modified from dismissal to removal from service. The applicant is challenging both these orders ie. arder dated 38 April, 2014, dismissing him from service and order dated 22° February, 2017, rejecting his appeal with modified punishment from dismissal to removal from SETVICe.
1.6. The applicant contends that he could not participate in the inquiry because he was prohibited from entering the premises of NEERI. He had lodged complaint with the police against this which was treated as NC. It is his contention that all the charges are false. He had not called the Press Conference, He had only answered the questions posed by the reporters, He did not send any threatening emails to the superiors nor did he upload the video of Press Conference. It was uploaded by the OBC Mukti Morcha. He contends that he had made allegations about bias because he had participated in the selection process twice but he was not selected.
2. Respondents filed their affidavit contending therein that notices were issued to the applicant about holding of inquiry at his residential address and also at his official address. The applicant was residing in the Premises 0 of NEERI. Therefore, there was no question of preventing fy him that his entry is barred in the office premises of NEERI except on days of holding of the inquiry, intimation of which will be given to him. They cantend that this is not the case of not giving the opportunity to the applicant but it is a case of not availing of the opportunity. Therefore, they prayed for the dismissal of the OA.
3. We have heard Mr. Shankar Borkute, learned counsel for the _ applicant and Ms. Gauri Venkatraman, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The Applicant's counsel submits that the applicant was placed under suspension and in the suspension order it was mentioned that he was prevented from entering the premises of NEERI. The applicant had tried to § enter the premises of NEERI but he was not permitted to do so and was mishandled by the security guards and, therefore, he had lodged a complaint with the Police Station of Dhantoli, now Bajaj Nagar Police Station, Nagpur against this manhandling. Police treated it as NC, as according to the police it was a civil dispute. He further contended that the applicant did not hold the Press Conference. He had not sent any threatening emails to the higher dignitaries and had only expressed his frustration through those emails. He further contends that the applicant did not take any photograph and did not shoot any video of various locations of NEERI. It was done by the OBC videographers. He further contends that the video was not uploaded by the applicant, but it was uploaded by the OBC Mukti Morcha, for which he cannot be held responsible. He submits that the inquiry is vitiated as he was not allowed to participate in it. Respondent no. 3 is the Disciplinary Authority against whom the applicant had made the allegations of bias and _ respondent no. 3 is the authority who has dismissed him from service. He eontends that principles of natural justice have not been followed. Therefore, the inquiry is vitiated. He further submits that the respondents did not pay him subsistence allowance. Therefore, the inquiry is vitiated on that ground also. The Appellate Authority did not give him personal hearing. Before deciding any judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, it is incumbent on the authority to follow the principles of natural justice and the Appellate Authority ought to have given him personal hearing before deciding his appeal.
AA, Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant was residing in the premises of NEERL Therefore, there was no question of he being prevented from entering the premises of NEERI. Notice of Inquiry was issued to him. He was served with thé notice. Notice was also pasted on his official residence. Even then he chose not to participate in the inquiry.
Magpie oi ee The applicant is, therefore, estopped from contending that he was not permitted to participate in the inguiry. She contends that the applicant did not put forth his grievance before any superior authority about him not _ being permitted to participate in the inquiry because his entry was banned.
Pat 2.2. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both the counsels.
3. The charges per se levelled against the applicant are serious. Even if we accept the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant that he had not called the Press Conference, then toa the seriousness of the charges does not mitigate. On pointed query by us to him, the learned counsel for the -- applicant submits that the applicant had answered the questions posed to him by the press reporters. We again made a query to the jearned counsel for the applicant as to whether he had "sought the permission from the competent authority to address the Press Conference, to which he answered in the negative. This clearly shows that the applicant, though he was not authorised to speak in the Press Conference, answered the questions put to him by the press reporters. It was not his job to answer the questions posed to him by the press reporters. This was done by him without seeking permission from the competent authority. The statements which he had made had appeared in many news papers. This clearly shows that he had made statements damaging the reputation of the institution. Therefore, this e:
charge stands proved.
3.1, So far as not giving the opportunity is concerned, we are more than satisfied that the applicant did not choose to participate in the inquiry on the ground of alleged misapprehension of being manhandled again. It is true ath that on 13° August, 2013 he had lodged a sormplaint with the police alleging manhandling by the security guards of NEERL Police did not register any offence as according to the police it was a civil dispute and, therefore, it was treated as NC. Learned counsel for the applicant cannot point oul any communication/email of the applicant to put forth his grievance that he had gone to the institute for participating in the inquiry but he was not permitted to enter the premises of NEERI by the security euards and, therefore, he had to go back without participating in the inquiry. A pointed question was made to him by us in regard to this and the answer was in the negative. He invited our attention to the email addressed to the inquiry authority on 10"
March, 2014. In this email he had only put forth his grievance about non- payment of subsistence allowance and that he was barred from entering the office premises of NEERI and that he had been manhandled earlier on the entrance of NEERI which is life threatening to him. There is no whisper in this email that he had in fact been prevented from entering the premises of NEERI on the date on which enquiry wag fixed. This clearly shows that he did not make any attempt to enter the premises of NEERI on the day on which the inquiry was scheduled. The email clearly indicates that he preferred not to go to the place of inquiry on the alleged misapprehension that he would not be permitted to enter the premises of NEERI. As indicate above, the respondents had addressed a etter to him banning his entry into the premises of NEERI, except on the days on which inquiry would be fixed, Having regard to this we do not think that the applicant was not given any oppor tunity to participate in the inquiry.
3.2, The respondents have placed on. raoord the memorandum dated iq"
October, 2013 in which it is stated that the applicant was allowed to. enter the premises of State Bank of India, within the campus of the institute along with the security guards, if he needed to do any banking transactions. The Director of CSIR, NEERI allowed the applicant to enter into the campus of NEERI for following purposes:
(i) Ta collect the postal documents and letters received in his name.
(i) To return the Lap Top of the institute to his Head of Division/Stores.
(iii) The presence of the applicant is not required in the institute due to suspension except on days when the hearing in the disciplinary matter will be held for which he will be duly informed by the Inquiring Authority.
3,3. This memorandum clearly specifies that the applicant was permitted to enter the premises on the dates of inquiry. There is, therefore, no force in his contention that he was prevented from participating in the inquiry, 3.4. So far as giving opportunity of personal hearing by the Appellate authority is concerned, there is an OM dated 28" October, 1985 on page no. 112 of Swamy's Compilation of CCS (CCA) Rules, September, 2005 Edition which states thus: ~ "4s Rule 27 of the CCS (CCA) Rules does not preclude the grant of personal hearing in suitable cases, if has been decided that where the appeal is against an order imposing @ major penalty and the appellant makes a specific request for a personal hearing, the Appellate Anthority may after considering ail relevant circumstances of the case allow the appellant, at its discretion, ihe _ personal hearing."
3.5. This OM clearly postulates that the Appellate Authority can give personal hearing to the delinquent at its discretion if a specific request for personal hearing is made, Learned counsel for the applicant could not bring to our notice any specific request in this regard made by the applicant.
Therefore, this contention alse does not hold any water.
3.6. The applicant has also: placed on record print outs of the emails. which show that copies of these emails were marked to the Prime Minister, Members of Parliament, the President of India and others. It is needless to say that such communications are not to be made without the permission of the competent authority.
3.7. In view of the above facts and findings, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Disciplinary Aathority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. It is not pointed out that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse. The Inquiry Officer followed principles of natural justice but the applicant preferred not to remain present during the inquiry. Scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings is very limited. In judicial review what is required to be seen is whether principles of natural justice have been followed or not, whether the order passed by th he inquiry officer is backed by reasons and whether the findings are perverse.
3.8. We conclude that the findings of the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority are not perverse, They are supported by reasons.
39. For all these reasons, there is no reason for us to interfere in the orders passed by the respondent authorities. OA No. 2193/2018 18, therefore, devoid of any substance and it is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(Dr. Bhalwin Sah: ary > | (Justice M.G. Sewlikar) Member ra) Member GD fac! | | . R ~~ -