Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Suresh Sharma vs Ntro on 18 February, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No.3037/2014
with
O.A. No.3061/2014
M.A. No.3284/2014
M.A. No.92/2015
O.A. No.3087/2014
Order reserved on: 04.02.2015
Order pronounced on: 18.02.2015
Honble Mr. Ashok Kumar, Member (A)
Honble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
OA No.3037/2014
Suresh Sharma,
S/o Late Shri O.P. Sharma,
R/o 305, Pink Apartments,
Sector-18-B, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075. -Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. NTRO, through its Chairman,
Block-III, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
2. Shri G.S.N. Raju,
Scientist H, Centre Director, CMMS
And Inquiring Officer, NTRO,
Block-III, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
3. Controller of Administration,
NTRO, Block-III, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
4. Air Cmde (Retd.) V. Sehgal,
OSD (on contract) & Acting Director
(Establishment/Pers)
NTRO, Block-III, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
5. Dy. Director and Head of Office,
NTRO Block-III, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
6. Director-in-charge of NTRO
Prime Ministers Office, South Block,
New Delhi-110 011. -Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri VSR Krishna and
Shri D.S. Mahendru)
OA No.3061/2014
Suresh Sharma,
S/o Late Shri O.P. Sharma,
R/o 305, Pink Apartments,
Sector-18-B, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075. -Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. NTRO, through its Chairman,
Block-III, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
2. Shri G.S.N. Raju,
Scientist H, Centre Director, CMMS
And Inquiring Officer, NTRO,
Block-III, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
3. Controller of Administration,
NTRO, Block-III, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
4. Air Cmde (Retd.) V. Sehgal,
OSD (on contract) & Acting Director
(Establishment/Pers)
NTRO, Block-III, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
5. Dy. Director and Head of Office,
NTRO Block-III, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
6. Director-in-charge of NTRO
Prime Ministers Office, South Block,
New Delhi-110 011. -Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri VSR Krishna and
Shri D.S. Mahendru)
OA No.3087/2014
Suresh Sharma,
S/o Late Shri O.P. Sharma,
R/o 305, Pink Apartments,
Sector-18-B, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075. -Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. NTRO, through its Chairman,
Block-III, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
2. Shri G.S.N. Raju,
Scientist H, Centre Director, CMMS
And Inquiring Officer, NTRO,
Block-III, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
3. Controller of Administration,
NTRO, Block-III, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
4. Air Cmde (Retd.) V. Sehgal,
OSD (on contract) & Acting Director
(Establishment/Pers)
NTRO, Block-III, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
5. Dy. Director and Head of Office,
NTRO Block-III, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
6. Director-in-charge of NTRO
Prime Ministers Office, South Block,
New Delhi-110 011. -Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri VSR Krishna and
Shri D.S. Mahendru)
O R D E R
Honble Mr. Ashok Kumar, Member (A):
The applicant has filed the three OAs namely, OA No.3037/2014 along with OA No.3061/2014 & OA No.3087/2014.
2. In OA No.3037/2014, the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned Memorandum dated 22.09.2011 proposing to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The following reliefs have been sought by the applicant in this OA:-
i) To quash and set aside the impugned Memorandum No. V(B)/Misc.(DE/SS)/19116/2011-10245/10640 dated the 22nd September, 2011, and subsequent proceedings;
ii) To declare the action of the respondents in initiating Disciplinary Proceedings in violation of the statutory rules vide their Order No. V(B)/Grp-A/19105/PF(29)/2006-7517 dated 01.07.2014 as illegal and arbitrary, and order consequent release of all the pensionary benefits like DCRG, Communication of Pension, along with interest @ 12% from 01.07.2014.
iii) To recommend disciplinary action against those respondents responsible for harassing the whistleblower applicant, as provided for in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1965, without prejudice to the right of the applicant to move appropriate judicial forum for any civil/criminal action against such respondents responsible for harassment caused by their illegal actions.
iv) To allow the OA with exemplary cost.
v) To pass any further orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
3. In OA No.3061/2014 the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned Memorandum dated 07.09.2012 proposing to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The reliefs sought in this OA are as follows:-
i) To quash and set aside the impugned Memorandum No. V(B)/Misc.(DE/SS)/19116/2012-92 dated the 7th September, 2012;
ii) To declare the action of the respondents in initiating Disciplinary Proceedings in violation of the statutory rules vide their Order No. V(B)/Grp-A/19105/PF(29)/2006-7517 dated 01.07.2014 as illegal and arbitrary, and order consequent release of all the pensionary benefits like DCRG, Communication of Pension, along with interest @ 12% from 01.07.2014.
iii) To recommend disciplinary action against those respondents responsible for harassing the whistleblower applicant, as provided for in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1965, without prejudice to the right of the applicant to move appropriate judicial forum for any civil/criminal action against such respondents responsible for harassment caused by their illegal actions.
iv) To allow the OA with exemplary cost.
v) To pass any further orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
4. In OA No.3087/2014, the applicant being aggrieved by the impugned Memorandum dated 17.08.2012 proposing to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, has sought the following reliefs in this OA:-
i) To quash and set aside the impugned Memorandum No. XXVII/12/NTRO/2012(2)-82-D dated the 17th August, 2012, and subsequent proceedings thereunder.
ii) To declare the action of the respondents in initiating Disciplinary Proceedings and continuing the same in violation of the statutory rules vide their Order No. V(B)/Grp-A/19105/PF(29)/2006-7517 dated 01.07.2014 as illegal and arbitrary, and order consequent release of all the pensionary benefits like DCRG, Communication of Pension, along with interest @ 12% from 01.07.2014 and issue of PPO for Regular Pension and of notification regarding superannuation of the applicant on the afternoon of 30th June, 2014.
iii) To recommend disciplinary action against those respondents responsible for harassing the whistleblower applicant, as provided for in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1965, without prejudice to the right of the applicant to move appropriate judicial forum for any civil/criminal action against such respondents responsible for harassment caused by their illegal actions.
iv) To allow the OA with exemplary cost.
v) To pass any further orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Since the applicant is the same and common grounds and issues are involved in all the three OAs, these were taken up together for hearing and are also being disposed of by this common order. With the consent of both the counsel, OA No.3087/2014 has been taken as the lead case for the purpose of pleadings and documents.
6. From the pleadings in the lead file, it appears that the applicant had initially filed OA No.464/2013 before the Tribunal and vide order dated 26.11.2013, the Tribunal had closed the OA with liberty to the applicant to file separate OAs, if so advised. The aforenoted orders of the Tribunal were as under:-
2. The applicant in this OA has impugned the Memorandum No.XXVII/12/NTRO/2012(2)-82(D) dated 17.08.2012 issued by the President proposing to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Along with it, the substance of imputations of mis-conduct or mis-behaviour in respect of which the inquiry was proposed to be held and the list of documents by which the article of charge was proposed were also separately annexed. He has also impugned another memorandum No. V (B) / Misc (SS) /218/19116/2012-92/D dated 07.09.2012 proposing to hold another inquiry against him on another set of substance of imputation of misconduct or mis-behaviour and the list of documents.
3. On 08.11.2013, when this matter was considered by this Bench, the learned counsel for the applicant raised an objection that the aforesaid memoranda were not approved by the competent authority, namely, the Minister concerned on behalf of the President. However, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the OA itself is not maintainable as the two memoranda, referred to above, were on different set of Articles of charges and in terms of Rule 10 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, since the second memorandum is not a consequential order to the first memorandum, it cannot be considered in the same file. We have, therefore, directed the respondents counsel to produce the relevant file for verification. We also directed him to take instructions whether the aforesaid two memoranda were consequential to each other.
4. Today, the learned counsel for the respondents has produced the relevant file in which the aforesaid two memoranda have been issued. It is seen from it that they were issued not only after the approval of the competent authority but they are also on different set of charges which are not consequential to each other.
5. In view of the above position, agreeing with the submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondents, this OA is closed with liberty to the applicant to file separate OAs, if so advised.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. The applicant had thereafter approached the Honble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.6791/2014 and CM Appl. 16057/2014 in which the Honble High Court vide judgment dated 01.10.2014, while dismissing the Writ Petition as withdrawn, made the following directions:
During the course of hearing, it was suggested to the parties that the relevant part of the file containing the competent authorities approval may be produced before the CAT for its consideration, and if needed, for the petitioners inspection of that part of the file. This course was acceptable to the respondents counsel, who was in the Court, as instructed.
Accordingly, at the stage of hearing of the application, the Tribunal would consider the relevant record pertaining to the approval of the proposal to chargesheet the petitioner; inspection of that page, or those pages would be permitted in the Court to learned counsel for the petitioner. The CAT shall record specific findings in this regard apart from findings in regard to the case.
In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the petition. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn but in terms of the above orders.
8. On 31.01.2015 the learned counsel for the applicant stated that he has already inspected the original records produced by the respondents in the light of the directions of the Tribunal. We have also perused these records, which are file Nos. 920/45/c/6/2011-POL, 920/45/c/6/2011-2 & 920/45/c/6/2011-Vol-II. On 04.02.2015, when the matter was finally heard, the details in the aforenoted three files perused by us and inspected by the counsel for the applicant were noted as follows:-
We have perused the file No. 920/45/c/6/2011 POL relating to the disciplinary proceedings against Sh. Suresh Sharma, Editor Controller, NTRO. We find that in page 13 of the notings of the file, the Honble Prime Minister has approved the proposal for initiation of major penalty proceedings and the required approval for draft charge-sheet.
2. We have also perused File No. 920/45/c/6/2011Vol-2 in which the proposal by PMO dated 28.07.2012 for initiation of major penalty proceedings and the draft charge-sheet have been approved by the Honble Prime Minister.
3. On the same File No. 920/45/c/6/2011 Vol-II is the approval of the Honble Prime Minister on 06.09.2012 for initiation of major penalty proceedings and the draft charge-sheet against Sh. Suresh Sharma.
4. The original files which was produced and inspected by the counsel for applicant before the court on the last date have been returned to the counsel for the respondents. Written submissions have been filed on behalf of Sh. V.S.R. Krishna and Sh. D.S. Mahendru, counsel for the respondents.
9. The counsel for the applicant was heard who has also filed common written submissions in all the three OAs wherein referring to the judgments in State of Karnataka vs. KGSD Canteen Employees Association (2006) 1 SCC 567, the following specific issues have been framed for adjudication:-
(i) Whether the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. B.V. Gopinath (Civil Appeal No.7761/2013) accords any specific exemption to Honble Prime Minister as Minister-in-Charge, while taking action under Rule 14(2), Rule 14 (3) and Rule 14 (5), being disciplinary authority.
ii) Whether the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 having legislative character can be read differently or given different interpretation on the basis of status/designation (Prime Minister, Finance Minister etc.) of disciplinary authority.
iii) Whether the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court having binding force under Article of 141 of the Constitution of India can be ignored merely because the designated disciplinary authority holds particular status/designation such as Prime Minister, Finance Minister etc. The law laid down by Honble Supreme Court, being the highest Court of the country cannot be allowed to be violated or ignored merely by going by the designation/status of the disciplinary status.
10. The main argument of the learned counsel for the applicant was that the applicants case was squarely covered by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. B.V. Gopinath (Civil Appeal No.7761/2013), since in the case of the applicant there was no approval of Disciplinary Authority at the required stages under Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It would, therefore, imply that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant were required to be declared as non-est and void abinitio. Various decisions of the Tribunal have been cited in the written submissions and summing up the arguments, it was contented that the following three distinct approvals are required under Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which were not taken in the applicants case while initiating the said disciplinary proceedings:-
(i) Initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings under Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965;
(ii) Framing and issue of Charge-Memo (Charge Sheet) as per Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965;
(iii) Appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer as per Rule 14(5) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, after examining the response of the applicant to the impugned Memorandum.
11. Mr. V.S.R. Krishna and Mr. D.S. Mahendru appeared on behalf of the respondents and argued the matter. Written Submissions have also been filed by them in these three OAs. It was stated that the present adjudication is & has to be done as per the directions of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.6712/2013, which we have noticed above. It was further submitted that the relevant files on which the Prime Minister as Minister in-Charge and the Disciplinary Authority approved the initiation of disciplinary proceedings for major penalty against the applicant were produced and were perused by the Tribunal. As regards the reliance in the matter of B.V. Gopinath (supra), counsel for the respondents argued that in that matter the Honble Supreme Court in para 40 of its judgment has held that a charge sheet can only be issued upon approval by the Appointing Authority. Learned counsel submitted that in the present set of OAs the approval of the Honble Prime Minister has been obtained and the disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the applicant only thereafter. Mr. Krishna further argued that the ratio of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court to the effect that charge sheet should be issued to the applicant with the approval of the Disciplinary Authority has, thus, been complied with in the present matter because prior approval of the Honble Prime Minister as Minister in-Charge was obtained. Mr. Krishna further submitted that it would not be out of place to mention that the charge sheets in these three OAs were approved by the Honble Prime Minister as Minister in-Charge in September, 2011, August, 2012 and September 2012 while the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in B.V. Gopinaths case (supra) was pronounced later, i.e., on 05.09.2013.
12. We have considered the arguments of both parties and as noted above and perused the original records pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings and the issuance of charge-sheet under Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. This has been done only after the approval of the Honble Prime Minister as Minister in-Charge. We find no reason to conclude otherwise at this stage. There does not appear to be any reason to interfere with the charge-sheet because the disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge-sheet are based on the prior approval of the competent authority in the matter, i.e., the Honble Prime Minister as Minister in-Charge.
13. We agree with the contention of the respondents counsel that the present adjudication has to be confined in terms of the directions of the Honble High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.6712/2013. Moreover, we also feel that even in terms of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in B.V. Gopinath (supra), there has been due compliance by way of prior approval of the Prime Minister as Minister in-Charge for initiating the disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge-sheet against the applicant. We, therefore, find no need to interfere in the disciplinary proceedings in any of the three OAs.
11. All the three O.As. being devoid of merit cannot be allowed and are accordingly dismissed. MA Nos.3284/2014 & 92/2015 have been filed in OA No.3061/2014. With the disposal of the OAs, the aforesaid MAs do not survive. No order as to costs.
12. Let a copy of this order be placed in each of the case files.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Ashok Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) cc.