Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sanjay Gupta vs Sh. M. F. Farooqui on 26 May, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench CP No.290/2013 OA No.3273/2011 MA No.653/2014 MA No.1463/2013 MA No.1464/2013 MA No.3205/2013 CP No.531/2013 CP No.542/2013 New Delhi, this the 26th day of May, 2014 Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman Honble Dr. B. K. Sinha, Member (A) Sanjay Gupta S/o Sh. P. C. Gupta R/o Durga Place, ITI Chowk, Sonepat 131 001, Employed at DOT, New Delhi. Applicant. (Applicant in person) versus Sh. M. F. Farooqui The Secretary Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110 001. Respondent. (By Advocate : Shri D. S. Mahendru) : O R D E R (ORAL) : Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman :
CP No.290/2013 in OA No.3273/2011.
We have heard the applicant who appeared in person and Sh. D. S. Mahendru, learned counsel for respondent.
2. It is alleged that vide order dated 12.10.2012 in OA No.3273/2011, while disposing of the OA, the respondents were directed to complete the inquiry proceedings within three months and in the event the same is not completed within the stipulated time, the disciplinary proceedings would be closed. The applicant, who appears in person, submits that more than three months have passed but the respondents have not yet completed the proceeding and, therefore, the same may be directed to be closed.
3. On the other hand, Sh. D. S. Mahendru, learned counsel for respondent has filed MA Nos.1463/2013 and MA No.1464/2013 for extension of time and argues that the charges being serious in nature having financial implication, the proceeding could not be completed within the stipulated time. However, in the meanwhile, new guidelines have been issued by the DOP&T, prescribing the procedures to be followed before taking final decision by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, some more time is required to conclude the same. He further submits that the Enquiry Officer after completion of the enquiry submitted his report. A copy thereof has also been furnished to the applicant. The applicant has also submitted his representation 05.05.2014.
4. It is stated that as per revised guidelines, both the enquiry report and the representation of the charged officer are to be transmitted to the Union Public Service Commission for its advice. Under the new guidelines, UPSC is given four months time for sending its opinion. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the opinion given by UPSC would be provided to the charged officer for his representation and thereafter only a final decision would be taken by the disciplinary authority. He, therefore, submits that to complete the procedural requirements prescribed under the new guidelines, some more time may be allowed to complete the proceedings.
5. Having considered the submissions and looking to the facts of the case, we are of the view that there is no deliberate laches or negligence on the part of the respondent for non-compliance of the order of the Tribunal and the delay has since been caused on account of change of procedure, and as such, it is difficult to hold that the respondents are liable to be proceeded with further for the alleged violation of the order of the Tribunal dated 12.10.2012. We, therefore, do not find any reason to proceed in the matter. The contempt proceeding is accordingly dropped and the respondent is discharged from notice. However, the respondent shall complete the proceeding as per revised guidelines which have been brought on record through Additional Affidavit filed by the respondent, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months. In the event the respondent fails to comply with the same, it would be open to the applicant to approach the Tribunal again for the alleged disobedience.
MA Nos.1463/2013 and 1464/2013.
6. In view of the above order, no order is required to be passed in both the MAs. The same are accordingly disposed of.
CP No.531/2013 and CP No.542/2013
7. In view of the order passed in Contempt Petition No.290/2013, for the reasons stated therein, these two contempt petitions are also closed with liberty to the applicant to approach again in the event the respondent does not complete the proceeding as provided in our order in CP No.290/2013.
(Dr. B. K. Sinha) (Syed Rafat Alam) Member (A) Chairman /pj/