Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Syed Sajid Ali vs Union Of India Through on 22 September, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA NO. 728/2009 New Delhi, this the 22nd day of September, 2010 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L.K. JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) Shri Syed Sajid Ali, Dy. SP, CBI, SCR-1, New Delhi, R/o 200 HIG, Arunodaya Apartments, F-Block, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018. Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. V.S.R.Krishna) V E R S U S Union of India through 1. The Secretary (P), Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Block No.3, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. H.K.Gangwani) O R D E R (ORAL)
Justice V.K.Bali, Chairman Sequel to a regular departmental enquiry conducted against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 the applicant vide orders dated 8.06.2006 had been inflicted the punishment of reduction of his pay by two stages. The appeal preferred by the applicant against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 7.08.2008. It is against these two orders that the present OA has been filed. There will be no need to go into detailed facts of the case as the controversy raised by the counsel for applicant at this stage only pertains to non-supply of the second stage advice of CVC to the applicant before inflicting an order of punishment. On that count, it is stated that aforesaid two orders shall be vitiated. The plea for non-supply of advice referred to above has been raised in the body of the petition at various places. We may, however, refer to the pleadings made in that regard in para 4 (vii) of the OA which reads as follows:
4 (vii) That inspite of the fact that the witnesses produced in the inquiry categorically vouched in favour of the applicant and the documents proved the applicants innocence but for malafide reasons the respondents issued the impugned order of punishment by wrongly supplying to the CVC and to the UPSC material which was procured behind the back of the applicant. In such circumstances even though initially the proposal of the respondents was for imposing a minor penalty the submission of the additional material behind the back of the applicant made the CVC as well as the UPSC imposing a major punishment. It may be relevant to mention here that the second stage advice of the CVC was not supplied to the applicant for his representation in terms of the settled law and as per the guidelines of the government. That apart since the UPSC has disagreed with the quantum of punishment sought to be imposed by the respondents it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to have afforded the applicant an opportunity to represent against the said advice and failure to do so vitiates the entire enquiry.
2. The corresponding para of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents reads as follows:
4 (vii) The contents of this paragraph are wrong and incorrect hence are disputed and denied. It is submitted that the witnesses produced during enquiry had fully proved the charges framed against the applicant. The enquiry report and CVC/UPSC advice are based on the analytical examination of the case records. These are matter of record. The applicant submitted his representation against the enquiry report, which was duly considered. The competent authority has taken into consideration all the relevant facts of the matter while passing the impugned order.
3. There is indeed no denial whatsoever to the averment made as regards non-supply of CVC advice to the applicant. Counsel for respondents would, however, during the course of arguments state that the advice of CVC was given to the applicant as may be made out from the records of the case, which are available with him today. In that regard counsel has shown to us Note dated 11.07.2006 in the departmental file. The same reads as follows:
Sub: Disciplinary proceedings against Shri S.S.Ali, CBI, SCR.I. New Delhi under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964.
SP. CBI, SCR.I., New Delhi may please refer to his letter No.159/Misc./SP/CBI/SCR.I dated 20.6.2006 forwarding therewith the representation dated 19.6.2006 of Shri S.S.Ali, Dy. CP, CBI, SCR.I, New Delhi requesting for supply of copy of 2nd stage advice of CVC and parawise comments of CBI.
2. Enclosed please find herewith a copy of 2nd stage of advice of CVC for handing over the same to Shri Ali under proper acknowledgement. As regards supply of a copy of parawise comments of CBI, DP&T vide their ID No.221/9/2000-AVD.II dated 4.7.2006 has intimated that these are not required to be made available to Shri Ali as per CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
( S.C. GUPTA ) ADMN. OFFICER (PERS.) CBI : NEW DELHI
4. The applicant was inflicted punishment as referred to above on 8.06.2006. It is quite obvious that if at all CVC advice was sent to applicant, it was after he had been inflicted the punishment as mentioned above. The requirement of sending advice of CVC to the delinquent is to enable him to make a meaningful representation. Applicant made the representation without the advice of the CVC and sending the advice of the CVC after the order of punishment is passed would be of no avail to the respondents. Reliance regarding non-supply of CVC advice and consequeces thereof has been placed on State Bank of India V. D.C.Aggarwal & Another, AIR 1992 SC 3397 followed by us in OA No. 2207/2005 in the matter of Ravinder Kumar, IPS Vs. Union of India and another decided on 20.12.2007.
5. In the result, we quash the impugned orders with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the applicant from the stage where the CVC advice shall be given to the applicant for him to file a meaningful representation. Since the matter is old, we direct the respondents to complete the process of enquiry as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from today. If the outcome of the enquiry may yet go against the applicant, he surely will be at liberty to take other points which have not been pressed thus not taken into consideration by us today.
( L.K. JOSHI ) ( V.K. BALI ) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman sd