Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ex. Driver Jasmer Singh vs Gnct Of Delhi on 21 August, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.2434/2008 Friday, this the 21st day of August 2009 Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Ex. Driver Jasmer Singh s/o late Shri Inder Singh r/o House No.52 Village Pitam Puram, Delhi Group C ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Sourabh Ahuja) Versus 1. GNCT of Delhi Through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi 2. Secretary (Education) GNCT of Delhi Directorate of Education Old Secretariat, Delhi-6 3. Director of Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi Old Secretariat, Delhi-6 4. Asstt. Director of Education (Vig) GNCT of Delhi Directorate of Education Old Secretariat, Delhi-6 ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Aditya Chhibber for Ms. Jyoti Singh) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri Shanker Raju:
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Applicant, an ex-driver with the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, impugns respondents order dated 24.7.2006 whereby pursuant upon an inquiry a major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him. Also assailed is an appellate order dated 11.3.2008 whereby the punishment has been upheld.
3. Applicant, who was involved in criminal case No.223/2 of 97 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat under Sections 61/1/14 of Excise Act, found in possession of 240 liquor bottles and was also proceeded against simultaneously in a disciplinary proceeding on the allegations of unauthorizedly taking government vehicle where he carried 240 liquor bottles. Applicant undisputedly was acquitted from the criminal charges on 17.10.2003 though giving benefit of doubt, yet the inquiry proceeded where he was held guilty by framing the issue of unauthorizedly taking the government vehicle. However, the disciplinary authority agreed with the inquiry report, yet the penalty was imposed on the second charge of carrying liquor bottles without following the due procedure of law and without giving tentative conclusion with a reasonable opportunity to show cause.
4. This punishment when challenged on this ground before the appellate authority, a non speaking order passed also rejected the appeal.
5. This, in nutshell, is the grievance of the learned counsel for applicant, who states that applicant has been punished on a charge, which has not even been framed against him and not proved in the inquiry.
6. On the other hand, learned proxy counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that the very act of the applicant of unauthorizedly taking the government vehicle is itself gross enough to warrant the punishment and as no infirmity has been committed in the inquiry, he prays dismissal of the OA.
7. As per the decision of Apex Court in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India & others, 2006 (3) SLR SC 10, a government servant cannot be punished on a charge, which has not been proved against him. Moreover, the prerogative to disagree is of disciplinary authority, yet it has to be done on a prior reasonable opportunity to the concerned. As we are satisfied that though as per the memorandum the reference of charges framed by the inquiry officer does not include the charge of carrying liquor bottles of which the applicant has already been acquitted on a judicial verdict, as such, he has been held guilty for unauthorized absence of taking government vehicle, yet the disciplinary authority punished him on an unproved charge without following the due process of law, which cannot be countenanced in law.
8. The appellate authority, which is supposed to pass a speaking order, has also not considered this aspect, as mandated under Rule 27 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. This order is also bad in law.
9. Resultantly, OA is allowed to the extent of quashing the impugned orders. Applicant should be put back on reinstatement in whatever position he had been earlier to the dismissal. Liberty is accorded to the disciplinary authority to resume the proceedings, if so advised and thereafter law shall take its own course. The interregnum shall be decided as per law. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/