Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Rajesh Kumar Balara vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others Through on 10 August, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.3728/2009 Tuesday, this the 10th day of August 2010 Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Shri Rajesh Kumar Balara s/o shri Maha singh House No.129, Vill Sultanpur Dabas PO Pooth Khurd, Delhi-39 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri M K Bhardwaj) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others through 1. The Chief Secretary Govt. of NCT of Delhi New Secretariat, IP Estate New Delhi 2. The Secretary of Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi Old Secretariat, IP Estate, New Delhi 3. The Director Directorate of Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi Old Secretariat, IP Estate New Delhi 4. The Deputy Director of Education North West B FU Block, Pitampura, New Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. P K Gupta) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri Shanker Raju:
Applicant is being aggrieved by an order passed by the respondents dated 19.6.2008 imposing upon him a major penalty of reversion for five years with cumulative effect. Also assailed is an order passed by the appellate authority on 26.5.2009 whereby the penalty has been affirmed.
2. On an allegation that the applicant was found under the influence of liquor in school premises and also used filthy and abusive language for his senior officers, applicant was proceeded against on the report of preliminary inquiring committee whereby the charges against the applicant were substantiated. A memo for major penalty under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was served and an inquiry officer was appointed.
3. The inquiry officer in this case adopted a novel methodology, which is not apt as per the rules by holding four preliminary inquiries and not calling the applicant in those inquiries. However, when such an inquiry and recording of reasons was objected to, the inquiries were closed and their earlier statements were relied upon and with an additional statement in few cases, applicant was given an opportunity to cross examine and in one case of examination of PW-5, Shri K Iyer, he was not even called for cross examination. Simultaneously with cross examination, the inquiry officer has concluded the charges leveled against the applicant and without taking presenting officers brief, applicants defence was called for and thereafter a finding has been recorded not even discussing the defence put forth by the applicant. This conclusion, which is against Rule 14 ibid was basis of the order passed by the disciplinary authority and when challenged in appeal, a non-speaking order passed by the appellate authority gives rise to the present OA.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for applicant states that right to note the entire statement of witnesses and to question his demeanor, etc. having not been provided to the applicant, the inquiry officer without going through the entire ordeal concluded the charges, which has been done by pre-judging the issue. He has also stated that deprivation of right of his defence being considered, he has been greatly prejudiced.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that once such a finding has been responded to by way of representation, the order of disciplinary authority cured entire defect and once the order has been upheld in appeal, no illegality is stated to have been committed by the respondents.
6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records.
7. Inquiry officer is a quasi-judicial authority and he is not above the rules. Being such an authority on administrative side, a methodology given under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, i.e., Rule 14, cannot be bye-passed to arrive at a different finding. The Apex Court on the role of inquiry officer in State of Uttar Pradesh & others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 has clearly ruled that the inquiry officer being a non-biased and independent officer is precluded from acting as a judge or prosecution. It appears that in the instant case even the role of presenting officer has been played by the inquiry officer and without dealing with the contentions of the applicant, an abrupt, inclusive and indefinite finding recorded cannot be countenanced in accordance with Rule 14 ibid.
10. On this count alone, the inquiry report as well as consequent orders are vitiated. OA is accordingly allowed to the extent of quashing the impugned orders. Matter is remitted back to the inquiry officer to initiate the inquiry from the stage of recording evidence or prosecution witnesses under Rule 14 ibid, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In such an event, law shall take its own course. No costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/