Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Ramdhan vs Delhi Jal Board on 14 December, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench TA No.410/2009 New Delhi, this the 14th day of December, 2009 Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J) Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Shri Ramdhan S/o Jaipal Singh R/o H. No.287, Shiv Mandir, Wazirabad, Delhi. Applicant. (By Advocate: Sh. Manish Kumar) Versus Delhi Jal Board Govt. of NCT of Delhi Varunalaya Phase-II, Jhandewalan New Delhi (through its Director Respondent. (By Advocate: Sh. Nisha Kant Pandey) :ORDER: Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A):
Shri Ramdhan, working with Delhi Jal Board has moved the Honble High Court of Delhi in the Writ Petition (C) No.553/2001 whereby he has sought for the following reliefs :-
(a) quash Inquiry Report dated 13-7-2000 (Annexure-D);
(b) quash order dt. 1-12-2000 (Annexure-f);
(c) quash order dt. 15-2-2001 (Annexure-H);
(d) direct the respondent to reinstate petitioner in service with all the back benefits such as arrears of salary, seniority, continuity in service and promotion etc. By issuance of writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other writ, rule, order or directions.
Any other additional/alternate relief as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
2. In pursuant to the Notification issued by the Govt. of India dated 01.12.2008, adjudication of all service matters relating to MCD has been entrusted to this Tribunal. Accordingly, the Honble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 4.2.2009 transferred the Writ Petition to this Tribunal and the Writ Petition (C) No.553/2001 has been taken in the Tribunal as TA 410/2009.
3. Brief factual matrix of the case would reveal that the Applicant was appointed as Beldar on daily wages. Later on, in the year 1982 he was confirmed on the said post. On 11.08.1996 one Shri Rakesh Kumar had committed suicide and left a suicide note thereby addressing the petitioner that he had allegedly handed over an amount of Rs.54,000/- for onward transmission to Shri Sanjay Guupta for employing twenty four boys in Jal Board. It was further written in the letter that Shri Rakesh Kumar had already given Rs.72,000/- to Shri Sanjay Gupta, A.D. (P&M) Jal Board for employing twenty four boys, out of which eighteen boys were from Applicants side for which Rs.54,000/- had already reached him and six boys were from his side for which Rs.18,000/- had already reached Shri Sanjay Gupta. It was further mentioned that on account of some checking going on for forged documents in respect of the boys putting in emergency duties, the appointment of thirty two boys for one year had been cancelled and Shri Sanjay Gupta could not do anything further. Since, Shri Sanjay Gupta did not even return the money, there was no other way out and he (Rakesh Kumar) was taking his own life. On the basis of this note, a case U/S 420, 306 and 506 IPC was registered in FIR No.381/96 of the Police Station, Timar Pur, New Delhi against the Applicant and his son Shri Vinod. The case came up before Additional Session Judge, Delhi who dismissed the criminal case against the Applicant and his son arising out of above said FIR No.381/96 as no case could be made out. Pursuant to suicide note recovered from the said Rakesh Kumar, statement dt. 3.09.1996 was taken from the Applicant by Sh. B. P. Pandey, a Vigilance Officer of the Jal Board. In that statement, the Applicant has mentioned that on the basis of the promise of Sh. Rakesh Kumar he could get certain boys appointed with Jal Board through Sanjay Gupta for which he had paid certain amount to Shri Sanjay Gupta after collecting the same from the boys who wanted to be appointed on the muster roll of Jal Board. It is further case of the Applicant that in December 1996 he was appointed as Lower Division Clerk with Municipal Corporation of Delhi after successfully qualifying the Departmental Test on 6.11.1997 and he was served with memorandum wherein certain allegations were made to the effect that while working as Beldar in the office of E.E. (EM) Wazirabad during the year 1996, had collected money and accepted illegal gratification from the job seekers for getting them engaged in Muster Roll of Delhi Water Supply and Sewerage Division Undertaking. The Applicant replied to the said Memorandum which was not found satisfactory and a detailed inquiry was ordered. Shri D. D. Lohani was appointed as Inquiry Officer (I.O.). The Applicant submitted his reply before the Inquiry Officer. On 13.07.2000, the Applicant received a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer in which it was held that although it was not proved that the Applicant had collected any illegal gratification but it was proved that he had actively associated in alluring and duping the candidates for illegal passing of money to the deceased Rakesh Kumar. It is alleged by the Applicant that the Inquiry Officer based his entire report on the statement dated 3.09.1996 which was procured by Vigilance Officer from the Applicant under threat and pressure. The Applicant made a representation against the Inquiry Officers report on 10.10.2000 wherein he submitted that he was not given ample opportunity to prove his case as his evidence was closed ex-parte. Vide order dated 1.12.2000 (Annexure-F), the Applicant was dismissed from service to which he had filed an appeal dated 18.12.2000 to the Executive Officer, Jal Board. Appeal of the Applicant was dismissed by Sh. Ajay Garg, Additional Director of Vigilance by order dated 15.02.2001 (Annexure-H). Aggrieved with the above, the Applicant has moved to the Honble High Court of Delhi with the aforesaid reliefs and on transfer this case was finally heard by us.
4. Shri Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the Applicant, took us through the pleadings to support his contentions that (i) no action was taken against the main accused who received money from the job seekers namely Shri Sanjay Gupta. On the contrary, action was initiated against the Applicant. He relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Tata Engg. & Locomotive Co. Ltd. Versus Jitendra Pd. Singh & Anr. [JT 2000 (Supp.1) SC 222] to submit that singling out the Applicant alone and dismissing him from service would amount to denial of justice. (ii) the Applicant has not received money from the job seekers and, therefore, the action cannot be taken against a person who has not committed any offence. (iii) the Inquiry Officer has found him not guilty of accepting illegal gratification of money. Thus, when the first part of the imputation does not stand to reason the second part that the Applicant had lured and duped the job seekers would not stand to logic. In this context, he cited the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ved Prakash Gupta versus Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. [AIR 1984 SC 914] to submit that the punishment inflicted is disproportionate. (iv) the admission of guilt statement given by the Applicant was under force exerted by the Vigilance Officers of the Delhi Jal Board, therefore, such admission should not be taken into account for imposing the punishment. (v) the defence witness produced by the Applicant clearly indicated to the I.O. that he did not given any money to the Petitioner for transmitting the same to Shri Rakesh Kumar. (vi) He was not permitted to bring in other defence witnesses who would have been material to state that the Applicant was not involved in collection of money from the job seekers to engage them on the muster roll. Non production of these witnesses has prejudiced him and as a result of which the punishment would not stand to reason. He, therefore, pleaded that the TA should be allowed.
5. On the other hand, Shri N. K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the Respondents, very strongly opposed the contentions raised by Shri Manish Kumar. He highlighted that the Applicant was a middle man and guarantor for all the transactions made between the job seekers and Shri Sanjay Gupta and Rakesh Kumar. He also drew our attention to the note left by Shri Rakesh Kumar before he committed suicide to state that the Applicant was thickly involved in the malpractices which was done by luring the job seekers and extracting money from them for getting them jobs in Delhi Jal Board. With regard to permitting the Applicant to produce adequate defence witnesses, he submitted that the Applicant was allowed to bring in his second defence witness but he did not produce, as a result of which, examination and cross examination could not take place. He highlighted that the entire disciplinary proceeding was as per the normal procedure and the principles of natural justice have been fully complied with. The Applicant was given adequate opportunity by the I.O. during the enquiry. The decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority and order passed by the Appellate Authority have been as per the laid down procedure and there had been no deviation. Therefore, he pleaded that since the Applicant was fully involved as a middle man in securing the jobs to the job seekers and corrupt practice was involved, the TA is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival contentions, we would now like to examine the charge framed against the Applicant, findings of the Inquiry Officer and the decision taken by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities in the case.
7. The statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the only Article of charge framed against the Applicant vide Memorandum dated 6.11.1997 reads as follows :-
Statement of Imputations of misconduct in support of articles of charge framed against Shri Ram Dhan Singh S/o Shri Jai Pal Singh, LDC C/o EE(C)DR. Shahdara-II.
Shri Ram Dhan Singh while working as Beldar in the office of EE (E&M) Wazirabad, during the year 1996 committed the following acts of omission and commission:
1. That Shri Ram Dhan Singh collected Rs.54,000/- from some job seekers and had given to Late Shri Rakesh Kumar, Khallasi for onward transmission to Shri Sanjay Gupta, the then AD (P&M) for illegal act of engaging the persons including his son and nephew on Muster-Roll. The said amount was given by him in two installments i.e. Rs.12,000/- on 10.6.96 and balance of Rs.42,000/- on or before 13.6.96. Thus, Shri Ram Dhan Singh lured the dupes for engaging fresh candidates on Muster-Roll and accepted illegal gratification from them. This is a serious misconduct on his part.
From the foregoing, it is evident that Shri Ram Dhan Singh has failed to maintain integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of Municipal servant. He has, thereby, contravened Rule 3(1) (i) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as amended from time to time and made applicable to the employees of Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal undertaking.
8. Shri D. D. Lohani, the Inquiry Officer in the case, was appointed vide order dated 19.01.2008 and the inquiry commenced on 19.02.1998 when the Applicant confirmed the receipt of charge sheet and pleaded not guilty to the charge. After completing the formalities of inspection of listed and defence documents, he conducted the regular hearing on 17.11.2009, 20.01.2000, 7.03.2000, during which one witness was examined, 3 documents were taken on record on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority and one defence witness was also examined on behalf of the Applicant. Since the Applicant was adopting dilatory tactics right from the beginning which has been illustrated in the Inquiry Report, the I.O. gave him sufficient time and give number of opportunities to bring in the defence documents and defence witnesses and the Applicant could examine only one defence witness. On the basis of the facts of the case emerging in the enquiry and the defence tendered by the Applicant that the I.O. finalized his report dated 13.07.2000 in which he held the charge against the Applicant as proved. The concluding part of the Inquiry Report is extracted below for better appreciation of the case :-
10. The case on behalf of Disciplinary Authority entirely depends on the suicidal note of Sh. Rakesh Kumar (Ex.S-1) and the statement of C.O. before vigilance vide Ex.S-2. The C.O. has gone back from his statement Ex.S-2 vide Ex.S-3 to some extent but the facts given therein broadly tally with the facts given in the suicidal note. Some of the names of the prospective candidates given by the C.O. in his statement Ex.S-2 tally with the name given by DW-1. The evidence given by DW-1 also broadly tallies with the statement of the C.O. and suicidal note. Even DW-1 has stated that the money given with the consent of the C.O. and his guarantee that the deceased will not run away with the money in case the work is not done. It has also come on record through suicidal note (Ex.S-1) that the C.O. had gone to Sh. Sanjay Gupta for collecting the appointment letters. DW-1 has also suggested that the C.O. acted as a guarantor and vouchsafed the credulity of the deceased before money was passed to him. It is also on record that the C.O. was fully aware of the purpose for which the money was given and that too on his guarantee. IN the result it is substantiated against the C.O. that he abetted the illegal collection of money by the deceased for ensuring them employment on muster-roll. The allegation that C.O. collected money is not substantiated. The charge substantiated against the C.O. is that he was actively associated in luring and duping the public/candidates for illegal passing of money to the deceased. To this extent only, the charge is substantiated against the C.O. FINDING
11. The allegation is proved against the C.O. to the extent observed in para 10.
9. The Applicant was communicated the said report of the Inquiry Officer which was replied by him on 10.10.2000. He raised some of the specific grounds in his representation and after due consideration of the same by the Disciplinary Authority [Member (Administration)] a final order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority in his order dated 1.12.2000 dismissing the Applicant from service. The relevant part of the order is as follows :-
Considering the gravity of the charge against Sh. Ram Dhan Singh, a regular departmental inquiry was conducted by Sh. D. D. Lohani, E.O. The Enquiry Officer while submitting his report concluded that the charge is proved against Sh. Ram Dhan Singh. A copy of the inquiry report was also supplied to him for inviting his comments. Sh. Ram Dhan Singh submitted his representation in response to the inquiry report.
I, M. P. Tyagi, Member (Administration) have perused the charge against the C.O., inquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, reply of Sh. Ram Dhan Singh in response to the inquiry report and other documents on record. Sh. Ram Dhan Singh had admitted the charge of collecting money for the aforesaid nefarious act. The charge stand proved in the inquiry also. The contention of the C.O. that the inquiry report is biased and predetermined is not correct. The inquiry report is accepted and the penalty of Dismissal from service which would be disqualification for future appointment in govt. service upon Sh. Ram Dhan Singh, L.D.C.
10. Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 1.12.2000, the Applicant filed his appeal dated 18.12.2000 to the Chief Executive Officer of Delhi Jal Board which was considered by the Appellate Authority and the Additional Director of Vigilance conveyed the decision of the Appellate Authority on 15.02.2001 which reads as follows :-
After going through the appeal, and the other documents on record, I have concluded that there are no fresh fact which would warrant on re-evaluation of the penalty. The charge against the delinquent officer is proved. There is no other penalty which would properly fit the charge, other than the one imposed. No interference is called for. The appeal fails.
11. We find from the Inquiry Report that suicide note given by Shri Rakesh has clearly implicated the Applicant as one of the conduits for transaction between the job seekers and Rakesh Kumar/Gupta. The said suicide note also reveals that the deceased had given Rs.72,000 to Shri Sanjay Gupta, ED (P&M) to engage 24 persons on regular Muster Roll, out of which 18 were sponsored by the Applicant for which Rs.51,000 had been given to Shri Sanjay Gupta. For the remaining 6 persons, it is stated that Rs.18,000 were also reportedly given to Shri Sanjay Gupta. Shri Rakesh Kumar in his suicide note informed that since Shri Gupta did not keep up his words he had to commit suicide. The Applicant knew Shri Rakesh Kumar for over 20 years and it is clearly evidenced that he has been the conduit in the illegal practice of engaging regular Muster Roll persons in lieu of money that was transacted between the parties. The evidence has been brought out that the Applicant has been in constant touch with Shri Sanjay Gupta during the period when the incident took place. Though the Applicant indicates that his confessional statement was taken by the Vigilance Officer to the effect that he had collected Rs.54,000/- from some candidates which he gave to Shri Rakesh Kumar as a consideration for engaging his own nephew and 17 other persons on Muster Roll, he has not been in a position to convince us as to in what manner he was pressurized to give such a statement and why did not he object subsequently to the statement to the competent authorities. The Inquiry Officer after analyzing the evidence in the report, very clearly brought out the fact about the Applicants involvement and appropriately came to the conclusion that the Applicant had committed the misconduct as stated in the statement of imputation in the charge memo. We have also examined the issue of proportionality of punishment in case of the Applicant and find that for the serious and grave misconduct of corrupt practices, luring and duping gullible persons for illegal engagement in muster roll through Rakesh Kumar which is certainly reprehensible and illegal misconduct which need to be visited with major penalty. From the angle of proportionality of punishment, we find that the dismissal from service of Delhi Jal Board has been rightly inflicted upon him by the competent Disciplinary Authority. While doing so, proper prescribed procedure has been followed and there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice. Even the Appellate Authoritys order is very clear and to the point. The Appellate Authority has taken into account the appeal filed by the Applicant and the facts of the case and has appropriately rejected the appeal.
12. The question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we can interfere on the grounds of disproportionate punishment compared to the proved misconduct. When the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated and finding of fact has been recorded in the inquiry, it cannot be interfered with as held by Honourable Apex Court in the case Management of Coimbatore District Central Co-op. Bank Versus Secretary, Coimbatore District Central Co-op. Bank Employees Assocn.[2007 STPL(LE) 38314 SC] "unless such finding is based on 'no evidence' or is perverse, or is such that no reasonable man in the circumstances of the case would have reached such finding." Honourable court in the said case goes on to observe that "'Proportionality' is a principle where the Court is concerned with the process, method or manner in which the decision-maker has ordered his priorities, reached a conclusion or arrived at a decision. The very essence of decision-making consists in the attribution of relative importance to the factors and considerations in the case. The doctrine of proportionality thus steps in focus true nature of exercise _ the elaboration of a rule of permissible priorities." In the present case, only one charge had been levelled against the Applicant, an inquiry was instituted and findings recorded that charge was proved. The inquiry was conducted in consonance with principles of natural justice and finding is supported by evidence and proper administrative process has been adoted. Keeping in view the charge proved, the Disciplinary Authority in our opinion, rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal from service which we would not term to be harsh so as to interfere with it.
13. Taking into account the full facts and the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the Applicant has not made out a case in his support and in the result TA being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (M. Ramachandran)
Member (A) Vice Chairman (J)
/pj/