Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Roop Narayan Singh vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 19 January, 2024
RESERVED ON 15.01.2024.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
Dated: This the 19th day of January 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 330/00731 of 2017
Roop Narayan Singh son of Shiv Prasad Singh, Resident of Village Chak
Sikandar, PO Mugarsan Via Hanumanganj, District Allahabad.
...........Applicant
By Adv: Shri S.K. Kushwaha
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture
Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi
Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001.
3. Adhoc Disciplinary Authority, Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (ICAR), Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute,
Barrackpore, Kolkata- 700 120.
4. Senior Administrative Officer, Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (ICAR), Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute,
Barrackpore, Kalkata - 700 120.
5. Administrative Officer, Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(ICAR), Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute, Barrackpore,
Kalkata - 700 120.
. .Respondents
By Adv: Shri N.P Singh
ORDER
By Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
2"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature certiorari quashing the order dated 12.04.2016 as well as appellate order dated 23.3.2017 passed by respondent No. 3 i.e. adhoc disciplinary authority, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute, Barrackpore, Kalkata (Annexure No.1 to this original application annexed in Compilation No. 1).
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.04.2016 passed by respondent NO. 5 i.e. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute, Barrackpore, Kalkata (Annexure No.2 to this original application annexed in Compilation NO.1).
(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service on the post of skilled Support Staff (S.S.S) and pay him salary month to month.
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the application/appeal of the applicant which is pending consideration.
(v) Any other suitable writ, order or direction/relief for which the applicant is entitled for in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(vi) Award the cost of present original application in favour of the applicant".
2. The facts emerging out from the O.A. are that the applicant while working as Skilled Support Staff, was placed under suspension due to the reason that applicant was convicted in a criminal case filed under section 323/24, 325/34, 308/34, 504/506 IPC vide order dated 29.01.2013 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ex-Cadre Court No. 23 Allahabad in Session Trial No. 259 of 2009 (Case crime NO. 102/2008). Respondent No.2 appointed Shri A.K. Singh as adhoc disciplinary authority. Adhoc Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 20.02.2015 recommending for penalty of removal from service. In pursuance of order of Adhoc Disciplinary Authority dated 20.02.2015 respondent No.5 passed an order of removal of the applicant w.e.f.
313.04.2016. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid order, applicant preferred a criminal appeal No. 631 of 2013 before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court under section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. Along with aforesaid criminal appeal, applicant filed bail application and the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 11.12.2013 has granted bail to the applicant. Thereafter Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 21.11.2016 stayed the judgment and order dated 29.01.2013 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ex-Cadre Court No. 23 Allahabad. Applicant moved a representation/appeal dated 08.12.2016 for reinstatement in service after the order of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ex-Cadre Court No. 23 Allahabad was stayed by the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad. In response to the representation/appeal of the applicant, respondents vide letter dated 07.01.2017 informed the applicant that his request for reinstatement is under process. During the pendency of the OA, when the counter affidavit was served upon the applicant on 26.07.2018, it came into the knowledge of the applicant that his appeal against the order of removal was decided but its copy was never served upon the applicant till date.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the offences for which applicant was convicted do not come within the ambit of moral turpitude. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that due to non-reinstatement of the applicant in service, he is facing acute financial hardships for survival of his family. Learned counsel next argued that appellate order is illegal in view of the provisions contemplated in the OM dated 21.07.2016 issued by the DOPT whereby it has been decided that if the conviction has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court, the removal order becomes untenable. Learned counsel also argued that since vide order dated 21.11.2016, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has stayed the order of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ex-Cadre Court No. 23 Allahabad, it was imperative on the part of the disciplinary 4 authority to reinstate the applicant in service. Learned counsel for the applicant placed on record a judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Katiyar Vs. State of UP and two others in WritA-No. 11761 of 2023 on 16.08.2023.
5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for respondents vehemently argued that appeal of the applicant against the order dated 12.04.2016 has already been rejected by the Appellate Authority by his order dated 22.03.2017, hence the applicant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hand, therefore, on this count itself, the present OA is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel further argued that applicant has been communicated the charges leveled against him vide letter dated 30.07.2014. He was given sufficient opportunity to make his representation against the charges made against him. Applicant has also submitted his reply to the charges leveled against him. It is submitted by the respondents that case was presented before the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority and Adhoc Disciplinary Authority issued a memorandum dated 09.03.2016 whereby it was stated that disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 initiated against him is withdrawn and the instant case would be treated under Rule 19 (1) of CCS (CCA)Rules 1965. Thereafter major penalty chargesheet was issued against the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that a letter dated 22.03.2017 has been issued to the applicant indicating that no question of recalling/setting aside the order of removal from service arose which is based on para 10 of DOPT OM dated 21.07.2016.
6. We have considered the rival submission and have gone through the entire record.
7. Undisputed facts are that the applicant while working with the respondents' organization was served with the charge sheet due to the reason that applicant was convicted in a criminal case under sections 323/24, 325/34, 308/34, 504/506 IPC vide order dated 29.01.2013 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ex-Cadre Court No. 23 Allahabad 5 in Session Trial No. 259 of 2009 (Case crime NO. 102/2008). On coming to the notice of the respondents, applicant was suspended from service. Thereafter full-fledged enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted its report. Copy of the enquiry report was duly communicated to the applicant and after receipt of the enquiry report, the applicant has also given a reply. After the receipt of the said reply, the Adhoc Disciplinary Authority passed an order of removal from service vide order dated 12.04.2016. Applicant submitted an appeal to the Appellate Authority but it was not decided at the time of filing of this OA. Thereafter it came to the notice of the applicant that when counter affidavit was filed by the respondents the appeal of the applicant has been rejected vide order dated 22.03.2017. Applicant filed amendment application No. 330/02648/2018 whereby he sought permission to challenge the aforesaid appellate order in this OA. The aforesaid amendment application was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.05.2019 directing the applicant to amend the OA within 7 days. Respondents were also directed to file amended counter affidavit. The aforesaid amendment was carried out in the OA and amended counter affidavit has been filed.
8. In the case of Manoj Kumar Katiyar (supra), the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in para 21 of the aforesaid judgment has held as under:-
"21. I have perused the order dated 26.12.2014 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Dehat and I find that conduct of the petitioner which led to his conviction in Session Trial No. 531 of 2009 has not been considered at all. Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India provides that a government servant cannot be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank unless an inquiry is conducted against him and he is afforded opportunity of hearing but an exception has been carved out that if the government servant has been convicted in relation to a crime then the disciplinary authority may consider the conduct which led to conviction of the government servant and if he finds that the conduct of the government servant is such that he cannot be retained in service then he can pass the order for his dismissal from service and for doing so inquiry is not required"
9. From the perusal of record, it is evident that applicant has been removed from service vide order dated 12.04.2016 on the ground of his 6 conviction in relation to aforesaid crimes. He had filed appeal against the removal order. It further appears that while deciding the appeal, respondents have not taken into consideration the conduct of the applicant, which led to his conviction nor has taken into consideration the gravity of offence for which applicant has been convicted. It is settled legal position of law that if conviction and sentence imposed upon the employee has been suspended/stayed in the appeal then in that situation competent authority is enough competent to consider for reinstatement of the employee in service, setting aside the removal order. In the present matter, from the perusal of the impugned order passed on the appeal of the applicant this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondents. Applicant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 308 IPC. Conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicant by the trial court has been stayed, thus as has been laid down in Manoj Kumar Katiyar (supra) by the Hon'ble High Court, it was imperative upon the respondents to reconsider the prayer made by the applicant for his reinstatement. Certainly non-consideration of the prayer of the applicant in light of the law laid down in Manoj Kumar Katiyar (supra) case will cause irreparable loss to the applicant. He has left many more years of service, certainly applicant and his family will suffer a lot if such prayer is not reconsidered.
10. In view of the above deliberations, we are of the considered opinion that issue involved in the instant original application is squarely covered with the decisions of Hon'ble High Court (referred to above), thus OA is liable to be partly allowed and is hereby partly allowed. Impugned appellate order dated 22.03.2017 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to re-examine the appeal of the applicant afresh sympathetically taking into account the other various aspects of the matter and pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
711. Accordingly, Original Application is partly allowed. No costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.
(MOHAN PYARE) (JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII) Member (A) Member (J) Manish