Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Prawin W Desai vs Govt. Of Nctd on 28 August, 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA 1926/2018
Reserved on 24.08.2018
Pronounced on 28.08.2018
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr.S.N.Terdal, Member (J)
Prawin W.Desai, Group 'B'(Retired)
Aged about 60+years,
Son of Mr. Wamanrao Desai,
Retired as: Motor Licensing Officer,
Transport Department, Government of
NCT Delhi, Resident of V-3, 2nd Floor,
Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110016. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Pardeep Kumar )
VERSUS
1. The Chief Secretary,
Government of NCT Delhi
(Through/service to be effected
Upon its: Director, At Directorate
Of Vigilance, Govt. of NCT Delhi,
4th Level, C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002.
2. Transport Department,
Government of NCT Delhi,
(Through/service to be effected upon its:
Commissioner, At 5/9, Underhill Road,
Delhi-110054. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr.Atul Kumar )
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J):
Heard Mr.Pardeep Kumar, counsel for applicant and Mr.Atul Kumar, counsel for respondents, and perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the parties.
2. In the OA the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"a. Call of the original records of the case, and 2 OA 1926/2018 b. Quashing and Setting aside of memorandum No.F.98/1/2008/DOV/19220 dated 17.11.2017 with its Annexure 1 to IV annexed thereto(Annexure A-1) and all other subsequent actions, orders and communications of the Respondents (Annexure A-
11) with all consequential reliefs and benefits;
c. Any other or further order or direction to grant complete relief to the Applicant."
3. The relevant facts of the case are that proposing to hold departmental enquiry for major penalty charge sheet was issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against the applicant vide order dated 17.11.2017 for the following charges:
"Article-1 That the said Sh.Prawin W.Desai a while functioning as Motor Licensing Officer in Ashok Vihar, Zonal Office, Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi during the 2008 committed gross misconduct in as much as he was involved in corrupt practices in issuing the driving licenses in connivance with the touts/middlemen. Article-II That the said Sh.Prawin W.Desai, Motor Licensing Officer, during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid post, committed gross misconduct in as much as he allowed the functioning of the touts/middlemen in and around the premises of his office, in violation of the guidelines of the Transport Department.
By the above acts of omission & commission, the aforesaid Sh.Prawin W.Desai, Motor Licensing Officer, exhibited lack of absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-III That the said Sh.Prawin W.Desai, Motor Licensing Officer, during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid post, committed gross misconduct in as much as he issued the driving licenses on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, without conducting driving tests of the applicants.3 OA 1926/2018
By the above acts of omission & commission, the aforesaid Sh.Prawin W.Desai, Motor Licensing Officer, exhibited lack of absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-IV That the said Sh.Prawin W.Desai, Motor Licensing Officer during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid post, committed gross misconduct in as much as he failed to exercise proper supervision over the functioning of his subordinate, Sh. N.S.Rana, Inspector, who was conducting the driving tests of the applicants in bulk/large number, through touts/middlemen, in a careless manner against the Transport Department's norms.
By the above acts of omission & commission, the aforesaid Sh.Prawin W.Desai, Motor Licensing Officer, exhibited lack of absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-V That the said Sh. Prawin D.Desai, Motor Driving Licensing Officer, during his functioning in the Transport Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, committed gross misconduct in as much as he acquired moveable as well as immoveable properties/assets, disproportionate/assets to his known sources of income.
By the above acts of omission & commission, the aforesaid Sh.Prawin W.Desai, Motor Licensing Officer, exhibited lack of absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Alongwith the article of charges, statement of imputation of misconduct, list of documents and list of witnesses were furnished to the applicant as he had denied the charges, the Presenting Officer and the Inquiry Officer were appointed in his case. The applicant has challenged the initiation of the departmental enquiry mainly on the ground that on the basis of the same facts an FIR was registered in 4 OA 1926/2018 2008 and still investigation is going on and charge sheet has yet not been filed, that the departmental enquiry is initiated roughly around 15 days before the date of retirement of the applicant, that there is an inordinate delay of about 10 years in initiating the departmental proceeding and that initiation of the departmental proceeding is against the principles of natural justice and against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. In support of his contention, the counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of V.P.Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors ( Writ Petition (C) No. 2935/2010) and in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Ram Karan Sharma (Writ Petition (C) No. 7895/2009) and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases.
(1) Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Kushal Bhan ( 1960 SC 806) (2) Kusheshwar Dubey Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
(AIR 1988 SC 2118) and Para 3.16 of the Vigilance Manual, Chapter-III, title 'Preliminary inquiry/investigation.
4. The counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the departmental enquiry initiated by the department shall not be interfered in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent cases in the cases of Secretary, Min. of Deence & Ors.
Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (AIR 2012 SC 2250) and Anant R.Kulkarni Vs. Y.P.Education Society and Others (2013) 6 SCC
515) and the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 4261/2013 in the case of B.S. Jarial Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The relevant portions of the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to by the counsel for respondents are extracted below:
5 OA 1926/2018"para 13 of Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (supra).
"Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject- matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings."
Para 14 of Anant R.Kulkarni (supra) "14. The Court/tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental enquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is dehors the limits of judicial review. In the event that the court/tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. Therefore, a charge -sheet or show -cause notice, issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by the court. The same principle is applicable in relation to there being a delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The facts and circumstances of the case in question must be carefully examined taking into consideration the gravity/magnitude of the charges involved therein. The court has to consider the seriousness and magnitude of the charges and while doing so the court must weigh all the facts, both for and against the delinquent officers and come to the conclusion which is just and proper considering the circumstances involved. The essence of the matter is that the court must take into consideration all relevant facts, and balance and weigh the same, so as to determine, if it is in fact in the interest of clean and honest administration that the said proceedings are allowed to be terminated only on the ground of delay in their conclusion. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma : (1987) 2 SCC 179), State of M.P. V. Bani Singh (: 1991 SCC (L & S) 638), State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal (:(1995) 2 SCC 570), State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan (: (1998) 4 SCC 154), M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India (:(2006) 5 SCC 88), Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (: (2006) 12 SCC 28), Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (: (2012) 11 SCC 565) and LIC v. A. Masilamani (: 2013 (6) SCC 530)."
6 OA 1926/20185. In our considered opinion the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent cases quoted above by the respondents should be followed. We are also of the opinion that there is no violation of principles of natural justice by initiating the departmental enquiry against the applicant. There is no law which prevents the respondents for initiating the departmental enquiry at the fag end of the service before retirement. Also there is no bar for initiation the above departmental enquiry while investigation is still going on the same facts which are subject matter of the departmental enquiry.
Consequently, this OA is devoid of merit.
6. OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(S.N.Terdal) (Nita Chowdhury) Member (J) Member (A) 'sk'