Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sangeeta Rao vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 19 March, 2021
1 OA No. 613/2021
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No. 613/2021
New Delhi, this the 19th day of March, 2020
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. A. K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
Sangeeta Rao
W/o Sh. Hemant Rao
B-34 Pushpanjali, Vikas Marg, Ex-II
New Delhi-110092. ... Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Rohit Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India
Department of Personnel and Training
North Block, through the Secretary
New Delhi.
2. Union of India
Ministry of Defence, South Block
Through the Secretary, New Delhi.
3. Shri Jeevesh Nandan
Additional Secretary
Ministry of Defence, South Block
New Delhi. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Gyanendra Singh)
2 OA No. 613/2021
: O R D E R (ORAL) :
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman:
The applicant was working as Director in the Ministry of Defence. An order of compulsory retirement was passed against her on 21.03.2016. Challenging that, she filed OA No. 1827/2017 before this Tribunal. That was dismissed on 18.09.2018. She filed WP No. 13452/2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, challenging the order of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition was dismissed on 14.12.2018. SLP filed against the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 01.04.2019.
2. When the proceedings referred to above were taking place, the applicant filed representation/complaint before the National Commission for Scheduled Caste (NCSC). The NCSC passed an order on 18.12.2018, taking a view that the entire service record of the applicant does not appear to have been taken into account, while invoking FR 56(j). It expressed the view that the concerned Ministry may reconsider the decision for reinstatement of the applicant into service. In compliance with the same, the DoP&T passed an order dated 10.07.2019 rejecting the claim of the applicant. The same is challenged in this OA. 3 OA No. 613/2021
3. The applicant contends that the respondents did not keep in view, the observation made by the NCSC and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. We heard Shri Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, at the stage of admission.
5. It has already been mentioned that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the applicant by invoking FR 56(j) was upheld by this Tribunal, Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Simultaneously, she approached the NCSC. It does not appear that she has apprised the NCSC of the factum of the dismissal of the OA and the Writ Petition. The NCSC passed an order on 18.12.2018 and it reads as under:
"The case came up for hearing on 18.12.2018. Director(establishment), MoD and Director (CS-I) from DoP&T alongwith other officers were also present. This hearing was held in continuation to the earlier hearing held on 30.10.18. during the last hearing, the Commission had noted in its minutes that the punishment given to Ms. Sangeeta Rao is too harsh and unjust. The Commission noted with displeasure that no senior officer either from Ministry of Defence from DoP&T was present. The Commission has viewed this matter very seriously. As already pointed out by the Commission, the Commission 4 OA No. 613/2021 reiterates its stand that the punishment given to Ms. Sangeeta Rao is not justified and does not fall within the ambit of RF 56 (J). In accordance with FR 56(J), the entire service period of the employee needs to be assessed before taking any action under that rule. However, in the instant case, it does not appear that the entire service period of the officer has been considered to award the punishment of compulsory retirement. So far the Commission understands only the period from 2014 onwards has been assessed by the Department/Ministry.
2. In view of the above, the Commission feels that the punishment awarded to Ms. Sangeeta Rao is not as per rule. Hence, DoPT, and MoD may reconsider their decision and a considered view may be taken for her reinstatement in service. The Action Taken Report in the matter may be intimated to the Commission within one month."
6. In all fairness, the respondents passed a detailed order which runs into about 8 pages. It has also indicated the limitations within which the NCSC was to function and the same was mentioned in para 24 of the order. It reads as under:
"24. Whereas DOLA has further stated that from the perusal of Article 338 and as per Notification dated 25.03.2009 under Article 338(4) of the Constitution, there is no doubt that the Commission has authority to investigate, monitor and inquire into specific complaints with respect to deprivation of rights and safeguards provided for the Scheduled Castes under the Constitution or under any other law for the time being in force by itself or by constitution a Committee/team in this regard but as per Rule 7.4.1(3), (f), (g) and
(h) of the said rules, there are some restrictions upon the powers of the Commission which are as under:5 OA No. 613/2021
"(e) no action will be taken on matters, which are sub-judice. Hence, sub-judice matter need not be referred to the Commission as complaint(s);
(f) cases pending in courts or cases in which a court has already given its final verdict may not be taken up afresh with the Commission;
(g) The cases of Administrative nature like transfer/posting/grading of ACRs will not be taken up by the Commission unless there is caste based harassment of petitioner;
(h) No action will be taken on the matters where there is no mention of violation of Reservation policy, DoPT OMs, Government of India orders, State Government orders, PSUs and Autonomous Bodies orders or any other violation of Rules of Reservation. Hence the matters where there is no mention of violation of above Rules need not be referred to the Commission as complaints."
7. We are sure that had the applicant brought to the notice of the NCSC, that the OA and the Writ Petition filed by her against the order of compulsory retirement are dismissed, the NCSC would have taken note of the same and would not have issued the direction.
8. Be that as it may, the respondents have undertaken extensive discussion in the impugned order and we do not find any basis to interfere with the same. The OA is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(A. K. Bishnoi) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) Member (A) Chairman rk/ns