Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Venkatachalapathy G vs Bhabha Atomic Research Centre on 17 March, 2025
1
O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00197/2023
Order reserved on : 11.3.2025
Date of Order:17.03.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Venkatachalapathy.G
Age: 49 years,
S/o R.Gandhi,
Working as Assistant Security
Officer/A(Under suspension),
Rare materials Project (RMP)
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Yelawal,
Mysore-571130,
Residing at:
No.59, "Bhabha Niwas"
Palm Gardenia,
Belawadi,
Mysore-570018 ......Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri.P.Kamalesan)
Vs.
1. Secretary,
Department of Atomic Energy,
Anushakti Bhavan,
CSM Marg, Mumbai-40001.
2. Head of Department,
Planning and Co-Ordination Division,
Government of India,
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT
Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.21
13:01:07+05'30'
2
O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Personnel Division,
Vigilance section,
Central Complex,
Trombay,Mumbai-400085.
3. Project Director,
Rare Materials Project,
BARC,
Yelawala,
Mysore-571130 .....Respondents
(By Advocate Shri.Vishnu Bhat for R 1 to 3)
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 claiming the following reliefs:
"i. Quash the Government of India,* The applicant is challenging the Government of India, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Personnel Division, Vigilance section Mumbai-400085 order vide letter Ref No7(16)/2022/RMP/Vig/316 dated: 25-7- 2022 vide Annexure-A3 issued by respondent No.2 ii. Quash the Government of India Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Personnel Division, Vigilance section Mumbai-400085 order vide letter Ref.No7(16)/2022/RMP/Vig/1/345/50/ 2022/ dated:19-10-2022 Annexure-A4 issued by Respondent No.2.
iii. Quash the Government of India,
Department of Atomic Energy Vigilance
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT
Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.21
13:01:07+05'30'
3
O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE section Mumbai-1 Memorandum No.VIG- 10/16/2022-DAE/16082 dated:21.12.2022 Annexure-A6 issued by respondent No.1.
iv. Consequently Direct the respondent No.2 to re-instate applicant with all consequential benefit.
iv) Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
* Tribunal's observation: This is redundant to quash the Government of India, it may be ignored.
2. This Original Application has been filed on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(1) to 5(10) of the Original Application. The brief facts of the case as mentioned by the applicant are that the applicant is Assistant Security Officer/A-at Rare Material Project BARC, Mysore. The applicant was kept under suspension vide order dated: 25-7-2022, by respondent No.2. The applicant submitted a request letter to revoke the suspension. The respondent No.1 issued a charge memo on 21-12-2022, initiating disciplinary proceedings under the provisions of Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965. The applicant replied to the charge memo on 2-1-2023 and also submitted a request to revoke the suspension on 15-3-2023. The respondent No.2 further extended the suspension by 180 days, from 22-4-2023 to 18-10-2023. The applicant submits that the charge memo was not issued within 90 SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 4 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE days of the order of suspension. Therefore, prolonging the suspension is in violation of consolidated instructions on suspension issued by DOPT and Hon'ble Apex Court order in Ajoy Kumar Chandry's case and in violation of DOPT OM dated: 16-12-1972. Hence, the applicant has filed this O.A seeking the aforementioned relief.
3. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply statement and the applicant has not filed any rejoinder thereafter.
4. The case came up for final hearing on 11.3.2025. Shri.P.Kamalesan for the applicant and Shri.Vishnu Bhat for respondent Nos.1 to 3 were present and heard.
5. We have carefully gone through the entire record and considered the rival contentions.
6. At the time of argument, inter-alia other things, it was mentioned by the respondents that the suspension of the applicant had been revoked by the order dated 12.10.2023, and he was posted outside the present location. Hence, the respondents asserted that the prayers related to suspension do not survive consideration, as prayers SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 5 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE no.1 and 2 mostly relate to suspension and its extension, as the applicant has prayed to quash his Annexure A3 suspension order dated 25.7.2022 and to quash the suspension extension order dated 19.10.2022. At this juncture the applicant had no specific say in this particular assertion of the respondents that "the suspension has already been revoked". Hence, the first two prayers do not survive for any further decision.
7. Accordingly, in the context of the inquiry and other arguments, only prayer no.3 which relates to quashing the charge sheet dated 21.12.2022 at Annexure A-6 No.VIG-
10/16/2022/DAE/162022/DAE/16082/dated 21.12.2022 remained for consideration.
8. Let us examine the contentions raised by the applicant, one by one, in paragraph 5 of the Original Application.
9. In paragraph 5.1 the applicant submits that the allegation against the applicant was that even though he was aware of alleged malpractices in recruitment scam in RMP, Mysore, he did not report it to the higher authorities.
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT
Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.21
13:01:07+05'30'
6
O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
10. Actually, this submission is more like a statement of the facts or assertion. It is not a ground and the respondents also have no comment on the same in their paragraph 5.1.
11. In paragraph 5.2, the applicant submits that the Sri Varadarajulu SO, had submitted a report to the project director, Mysore on 10-6- 2019 itself, which states that the applicant Sri.Venkatachalapathi ASO and Sri.Varadarajulu SO investigated the matter, but there is no material evidence to substantiate the allegation. Therefore, the allegation that the applicant failed to report to authorities is baseless.
12. In paragraph 5.3, the applicant also submitted a report dated:
23-6-2022 regarding the alleged money transaction case between Sri Madhavan PO & M and Smt. Hemalatha GSD to the security officer.
13. To which the respondents, in their corresponding paragraph of the reply, mentioned that the applicant, along with the other alleged official, had submitted a diplomatic and convenient report about the investigation stating that the complaints are baseless, which showed their lackadaisical attitude/approach in investigating the matter.
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT
Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.21
13:01:07+05'30'
7
O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE However, the matter was subsequently investigated by a duly constituted Committee and the Committee found several irregularities in the recruitment process at RMP against Advertisement No. BARC/MYS/01/2018 and they found the involvement of various officials, including the applicant, in the matter. Further, during the investigation, the applicant himself gave depositions before the Committee wherein he admitted the involvement of several other officials of RMP, Mysuru in the recruitment irregularities and also about monetary transactions and disputes in the matter. Being aware of these facts, the applicant failed to appropriately report these irregularities in writing to the authorities in RMP. Further, he himself was involved in mediation of various disputes raised between the officials involved in the irregularities, which is evidenced from his statement deposed before the Committee. Thus, the contention of the applicant is not tenable. The applicant was in close association with the officials and non-officials suspected to be involved in fraudulent recruitment activities at BARC, Mysuru.
14. The respondents state that the above is an obvious ascertainment from the statement given by the applicant at Аnnexure-
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT
Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.21
13:01:07+05'30'
8
O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE A10 (Page 42-44 and Page 51-53), therefore submitting his false report to authorities in the Department.
15. Clearly, these paragraphs (5.2 and 5.3) are regarding the facts of the case which need to be further ascertained by a detailed formal departmental inquiry and this does not make any grounds for the applicant to defend himself and make a case at this stage to discredit the charge sheet or to challenge either his suspension or the service of the charge sheet on him. Scrutiny of facts and assertions which support (or otherwise) the articles of charge at this stage by us would be premature as it will pre-emptively prejudice the process of inquiry. Hence the contents of para 5.2 and 5.3 does not in any way discredit the validly served charge sheet on the applicant.
16. In paragraph 5.4, the applicant submits that the applicant was placed under suspension from25-7-2022 vide order by Head and P& CD, Mumbai who is the disciplinary authority.
17. Again, this is a matter of fact and is not a ground as rightly mentioned by the respondents in their corresponding paragraphs.
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT
Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.21
13:01:07+05'30'
9
O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
18. In paragraph 5.5, the applicant submits that no charge memo was served on the applicant within 90 days, after keeping under suspension. The DOPT OM No.39/33/72 Esst(A) dated: 16-12-1972 stipulates that as "The total period of suspension viz both in respect of investigation and disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily exceed six months." Therefore, the applicant submits that the charge memo was not issued within 90 days nor the disciplinary proceedings were completed within 6 months. Therefore, the prolonged suspension, extension for further 180 days, not completing the disciplinary proceedings within 3 months were in violation of DOPT OMs.
19. In response to the same, the respondents denied the contention of the applicant and reiterated the respondents' reply to OA paragraph 4, which gives more details of this case, which mentions that the respondents denied the contentions of the applicant and reiterated the submission made supra for the sake of brevity. Further, it is submitted that, considering the seriousness of the matter and the active role played by the applicant in the same, he was placed under suspension as per the rules vide order dated 25.07.2022. Suspension of the applicant has been reviewed by the duly constituted Review SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 10 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Committee from time to time and his suspension was extended vide order dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure A4) and 19.04.2023 (APPENDIX R-4) as per the relevant provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. With regard to the issue of charge Memorandum to the Applicant, it is submitted that the duly constituted Committee, after detailed investigation of the matter pertaining to irregularities and corrupt practices in the recruitment at RMP, Mysuru, found the involvement of several officials belonging to various categories, viz. Group 'A' Officers, Group 'B' Officers etc. It is submitted that as the irregularities were widespread with the involvement of various officials and nexus with outsiders, it required some time to carry out a detailed investigation. Besides, as the officials involved include Grade 'A' officials, the procedural requirement of obtaining approval of the Competent Authority and Central Vigilance Commission for issuing charge memorandums also require time. Hence, there was a delay in issuing the charge sheet, but there are no violations of any rules/provisions in this case as contested by the applicant. The respondents have also given the details of background context of this case which we will take up in the next paragraph.
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT
Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.21
13:01:07+05'30'
11
O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
20. Further, it is submitted that the details/information regarding the irregularities and corrupt practices in the recruitment at RMP, Mysuru came to light late after an investigation was started in one of the disciplinary cases for an audio clip going viral on social media bargaining bribe money. The relevant details are mentioned below -
a. Consequent on receipt of various complaints from May, 2019 onwards and an audio clip conversation which went viral in social media in May, 2020, an investigation was conducted by the then Vigilance Officer of RMP/BARC, Mysuru. He submitted a report on 28.07.2020, with observation that one employee of RMP viz., Shri B. Krishnappa was demanding money from one Waitlisted candidate.
b. Based on the report of the Vigilance Officer, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Shri Krishnappa. c. As a part of it, in the first instance, Shri Krishnappa was placed under suspension and subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were carried out under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT
Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.21
13:01:07+05'30'
12
O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE d. Due to the procedure involved in conducting the disciplinary proceedings coupled with COVID-19 pandemic, the disciplinary proceedings concluded and the Inquiry Authority submitted his report on 12.05.2022. e. More details of irregularities and corrupt practices in the recruitment at RMP, Mysuru came to light during the disciplinary proceedings of Shri Krishnappa. f. Thus, a Committee was constituted by BARC on 26.05.2022 for conducting a detailed investigation into the irregularities in the recruitment process.
g. Final Report of the Committee on the investigation carried out in the irregularities and corruption in recruitment at Rare Materials Project (RMP), BARC, Mysuru was submitted on 29.07.2022.
h. Department of Atomic Energy examined the Report dated 29.07.2022 and observed that the selection process carried SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 13 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE out have been grossly compromised and vitiated leading to irregular recruitments. Hence, it was ordered to cancel the recruitment made through said Advertisement and terminate the officials appointed against the said advertisements forthwith without notice on 25.08.2022.
i. Memorandum was issued by Rare Materials Project (RMP), BARC on 26.08.2022 terminating the service of employees recruited vide Advertisement No. BARC/MYS/01/2018 as the entire selection process has been grossly compromised leading to irregular recruitments.
j. Subsequently, action have been taken for initiating disciplinary action on all the officials involves in the irregularities, including the Applicant.
21. Based on this, the respondents have emphasised that it is very evident that detailed investigation into the irregularities required some time for issue of charge memorandum. However, based on the involvement of the applicant in the irregularities, the Disciplinary Authority placed him under suspension vide order dated 25.07.2022 SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 14 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE which was reviewed periodically and extended as per the rules /powers vested with the authority. Therefore, date of the incident and action taken does not suffer from any irregularities.
22. We note that there is no rejoinder, hence, new submissions made in the reply statement have to be taken as reliable and the respondents have given the fair and comprehensive background context of the whole case that it started with an Advertisement No. BARC/MYS/01/2018 was issued by Rare Materials Project (RMP), BARC, Mysuru during the year 2018, inviting online applications for the various Scientific/ Technical/ Administrative/Auxiliary posts such as, Stipendiary Trainee Category-I & II, Technician/B Boiler Attendant, Sub-Officer/B, Driver Cum Pump Operator-cum Fireman/A, Driver Ordinary Grade, Security Guard, Pharmacist/B, Steno Grade-III and Upper Division Clerk etc.
23. It is pertinent to appreciate the details of these backgrounds as it will emphasize the seriousness of the context and role specifically played by the applicant in the same for which he was placed under suspension and there were enough grounds for contemplating a SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 15 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE disciplinary inquiry against him and accordingly there was justifiable grounds for keeping him under suspension.
24. The respondents further say that the said advertisement was issued for the filling up of 103 vacant posts. Out of 103 posts, 93 candidates were selected and placed against vacancies advertised at BARC, Mysuru. One candidate of CAT-I Trainee, resigned from the training and one CAT-II trainee was terminated due to a criminal case pending against him. Further, one employee expired after his absorption from training.
25. Various complaints dated 08.05.2019, 27.08.2019 and 20.05.2020 were received, besides an article dated 09.10.2020 published in local Newspaper including Police Notice received at Rare Materials Project (RMP), Mysuru on 10.06.2019 alleging malpractices and irregularities in the recruitment process relating to Advertisement No.BARC/MYS/01/2018. Five audio clip conversations including one audio conversation which went viral on social media about bargaining bribe amount by a Rare Materials Project (RMP) employee with a waitlisted Category-II (CAT-II) Trainee were received which was marked as 'ANNEXURE R-
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT
Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.21
13:01:07+05'30'
16
O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 1(Colly)' included the copies of Police Notice, Newspaper Clippings and transcripted version of Audio clipping.
26. The first information/details pertaining to the malpractices and irregularities in the recruitment process came into light late only after an investigation which was started in one of the disciplinary proceedings in respect of an employee whose audio clip cited above went viral in social media. Since the complaints were found to be very serious in nature, BARC vide Order dated 26.05.2022 constituted a Committee to investigate into the complaints of alleged corruption/irregularities including an audio clip conversation which went viral on social media about the negotiations by an employee of Rare Materials Project (RMP) with a waitlisted Category-II (CAT-II) Trainee and lack of transparency in the recruitment process carried out by RMP, Mysuru since 2018 and alleged involvement of some officials of RMP, Mysuru in the Advertisement No.BARC/MYS/01/2018.
27. The Committee submitted its Final Report on 29.07.2022 on the corruption in recruitment process of Rare Materials Project (RMP), BARC, Mysuru. The Committee, after going through the depositions SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 17 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE from officials and non-officials, available records, various complaints received on the alleged irregularities and after analysing all the events that took place with regard to recruitment under that Advertisement No.BARC/MYS/01/2018, concluded that:
(i) Various Question papers under the said advertisement were leaked prior to the examination.
(ii) Officials responsible for recruitment activities in RMP under the said advertisement lacked co-
ordination and totally failed in conducting the examination and selection process fairly.
(iii) Destroying the evidences, by weeding out of documents, in spite of there being complaints, a deliberate attempt to stop the truth from coming out.
(iv) Leaking of question papers and other irregularities were coordinated and executed by some officials of RMP and some contractors.
(v) Confidentiality of the process of setting question papers was not maintained adequately by the officials involved in the process. Further, the administrative authorities failed to ensure printing of question papers in a secured environment.
(vi) The concerned official was negligent over setting of the Question Papers by Course Coordinators who have taken the help of 5 or more officers for each question paper setting and thus failed in their duties to ensure setting of question papers, in utmost secrecy.
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT
Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.21
13:01:07+05'30'
18
O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(vii) The Examination-in-charge and other officials of RMP, Mysuru had given a scope for leaking of the question papers, and indulged in unprofessional conduct of examination and selection process.
(viii) In spite of knowing the involvement of RMP officials and about irregularities that were taking place outside, the concerned Security Officials had not reported the matter appropriately.
(ix) A strong nexus between the officials involved in recruitment activities and contractors was seen for favouring children/relatives/friends of RMP employees for illegal gratification.
28. The respondents emphasised that the Committee's Report clearly brought out the corruption, nepotism and other wrong doings by various departmental and outside actors. Consequently, disciplinary action has already been initiated against the officials including the Applicant herein who were responsible for above lapses and the common proceedings are going on against the charged officials based on the gravity of the respective charges. Two officials have been dismissed. Two officials are placed under suspension which includes the Applicant and some officers have been transferred out of RMP, Mysuru.
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT
Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.21
13:01:07+05'30'
19
O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
29. As in the case, item 8 of the report mentions that, "in spite of knowing the involvement of RMP officials and about irregularities that were taking place outside, the concerned Security Officials had not reported the matter appropriately," the respondents emphatically say that in this particular case, the applicant working as Assistant Security Officer/A at BARC, RMP, Mysuru had displayed lack of integrity, lack of devotion to duty by aiding various officials in the unit, contractors of BARC, Mysuru and others in committing the fraud and irregularities in the recruitment process under aforementioned Advertisement No. BARC/MYS/01/2018. The Applicant was also involved in the personal issues of the employees of BARC, Mysuru with an ulterior motive and suppressed appropriate reporting of the corrupt activities. The Applicant was also in close association with the officials and non-officials suspected to be involved in fraudulent recruitment activities at BARC, Mysuru and thus acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant thereby contravening the provisions of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the Applicant was initially placed under suspension vide order dated 25.07.2022. Suspension of the applicant has been extended after due review by the Committee as per prescribed procedure and subsequently charge sheet was issued, initiating SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 20 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE common disciplinary proceedings under the provision of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965.
30. We have seen the entire records carefully and considered the rival contentions. We find that it is a fact that the applicant was suspended initially for 90 days on 25.7.2022 vide Annexure A-3 and the suspension was duly extended after the empowered Committee recommended an extension on 19.4.2023 for 180 days. We also record that the initial suspension order dated 25.7.2022 mentioned clearly the reason for keeping the applicant under suspension, as contemplated inquiry. The charge sheet was issued on 21.12.2022. It is a fact that the charge sheet could not be issued within 90 days, but the complexity of the case in hand and the number of employees involved and many of them being Group A Officers for whom consultation from various agencies including the Central Vigilance Commission was required, hence there was some delay at this juncture when the charge sheet was issued after about 5 months and subsequently later the suspension was revoked on 12.10.2023. The applicant could have obtained and placed the proceeding of the Committee which examined the record and extended the applicant's suspension. The applicant has not asked the respondents to submit the said meeting proceeding, SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 21 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE which could have shed further light on the reasons for the extension of the suspension of the applicant. But in the absence of the said proceeding, the reasons of contemplated inquiry and appreciating the complexity of the case in hand the slight delay in serving charge sheet is in our considered opinion is adequately explained by the respondents and hence the issue regarding prolonged suspension or illegitimate suspension or its extension does not survive.
31. In paragraph 5.6, the applicant submits that the charge memo dated: 21-12-2022, which contains Article 1 to IV, were vague and not specific, regarding the involvement of applicant regarding fraud and irregularities in recruitment process under advertisement during 2018, at RMP, Mysore.
32. The respondents have replied to the same in the corresponding paragraph as the Respondents deny the contention of the Applicant. It is submitted that the charges framed against the Applicant are clear and specific to the misconduct committed by the Applicant in the subject irregularities which were also substantiated by the relevant documentary evidences. The charges are framed as per the laid down Rules and are for violation of respective CCS (Conduct) Rules.
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT
Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.21
13:01:07+05'30'
22
O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Further, it is submitted that, there are no vague charges or arbitrariness and the contentions made by the Applicant is vehemently denied. The above is obvious ascertainment from the statement given by the Applicant at Annexure-A10 (Page 42 44 and Page 51 53), therefore submitting his false report to authorities in the Department.
33. We have gone through the record and charge sheet. There are 4 Articles of charge in Annexure 1 to the Charge Memorandum. The charges framed against the applicant are supported by an Annexure II statement of imputations of misconduct and, in Annexure III, a list of 7 documents relied on are proposed to be sustaining the charges and, in Annexure IV, a list of three witnesses is proposed to be relied on to sustain the charges. In our considered opinion, the charges are clear and not vague. They are very specific regarding the involvement of the applicant in the incidence and irregularities in the recruitment process under advertisement during 2018. We are of the considered opinion that at this stage, flooding us in this O.A with a plethora of information will not make any successful case of defence for the applicant. The only way to test those charges is to go through the rigmarole of disciplinary inquiry and the applicant should actively participate in the same and defend himself with cogent grounds and SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 23 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE evidence. We do not find any grounds made out in this paragraph convincing enough for us to interfere with the impugned orders and set aside the charge sheet.
34. Judicial review of the contents of charge sheet and whether it is having properly framed Articles of charge, or the said articles are vague etc. has been examined and dealt in a catena of Hon'ble Apex Court rulings. We would like to discuss some of them here.
In the case of Govt. of A.P. and others and others vs. A. Venkata Raidu, (2007) 1 SCC 338, the Supreme Court said that "it is well settled that a charge-sheet should not be vague but should be specific". The court observed in para 9:-
"9. ................ In Charge 1, what is mentioned is that the respondent violated the orders issued by the Government. However, no details of these orders have been mentioned in Charge 1. It is well settled that a charge-sheet should not be vague but should be specific. The authority should have mentioned the date of the GO which is said to have been violated by the respondent, the number of that GO, etc. but that was not done. Copies of the said GOs or directions of the Government were not even placed before the enquiry officer. Hence, Charge 1 was not specific and hence no finding of guilt can be fixed on the basis of that charge. Moreover, as the High Court has found, the respondent only renewed the deposit already made by his predecessors. Hence, we are of the opinion that the SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 24 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE respondent cannot be found guilty for the offence charged."
In Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of W.B. [(1970) 3 SCC 548: AIR 1971 SC 752] the Supreme Court held, that it is not permissible to hold an enquiry on vague charges, as the same do not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make out an effective defence as he will be unaware of the exact nature of the allegations against him, and what kind of defence he should put up for rebuttal thereof. The Court observed as under:
(SCC p. 553, para 5) "5. ... The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated.
This rule embodies a principle which is one of the specific contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him."
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT
Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.21
13:01:07+05'30'
25
O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE In the case of Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society, (2013) 6 SCC 515 = (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 593 = 2013 SCC OnLine SC 395 [26.04.2013] the court referred State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1986) 3 SCC 454 = 1986 SCC (L&S) 662 = AIR 1986 SC 995 , U.P. SRTC v. Ram Chandra Yadav (2000) 9 SCC 327 = 2001 SCC (L&S) 79 = AIR 2000 SC 3596, Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar (2009) 12 SCC 78 = (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 129 and Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (2011) 14 SCC 379 = (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 926, and said what is required to be examined is whether the delinquent knew the nature of accusation. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. The Court referred the above case of Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of W.B., (1970) 3 SCC 548:
AIR 1971 SC 752 and said that Where the charge-sheet is accompanied by the "statement of facts" and the allegations are not specific in the charge-sheet, but are crystal clear from the statement of facts, in such a situation, as both constitute the same document, it cannot be held that as the charges SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 26 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE were not specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. When statement of allegations are not served with the charge-sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated, as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.
35. In this case, the copy of the charges was supplied to the applicant along with the Statement of Imputation of Misconduct or Misbehaviour based on which action under Rule is proposed to be taken against the applicant. If we read both the documents together then it is found that each and everything is clear. Every act of the applicant and the fact of the case are stated in the charges and the statement. No any confusion is created. The applicant was in the position to understand the charges framed against him. Therefore, the aforesaid argument cannot be accepted. After examining the record we are satisfied that the charge sheet is in order, and there is no valid ground made out by the applicant before us to interfere with the said charge sheet at this stage.
36. In paragraph 5.7, the applicant submits that in the statement recorded from Sri Umesh R dated: 13-7-2022, Smt. Hemalatha dated:
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 27 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE 11-7-2022, does not reveal that the applicant had any nexus in the alleged recruitment scam during 2019, at RMP Mysore.
37. Again, this is a matter of evidence which he must present before the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer should assess it based on other evidences and facts presented by the department.
38. To this the respondents have replied in their corresponding paragraphs that the statement of Shri Umesh, Dy. Chief Security Officer, RMP before the committee on 13.07.2022 (page 49 of Annexure A10) reveals that, the Applicant had personal intervention in the matters of other officials of BARC, Mysuru. The Dy. Chief Security Officer, RMP has also raised suspicion on the involvement in financial dealings between the Applicant and the other charged official Shri Madhavan. The statement of Smt. Hemalatha before the committee on 11.07.2022 (page 45 of Annexure A10) also exposes the close association of the Applicant with other charged official Shri Madhavan. The charges framed against the Applicant are sustained by documentary evidence adduced during the investigation. Further, it is submitted that consequent on appointment of Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges. levelled against the Applicant and eight SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 28 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE others in a Common Proceedings process, the Inquiry proceedings have started where level and extent of involvement of the Applicant in the irregularities would come out. Departmental Inquiry for the charges levelled against the Applicant is under process.
39. Clearly, these are matters of evidence and, at this stage, they cannot be used to discredit the charge sheet itself, which otherwise is duly conceived and duly served on the applicant and the applicant should actively participate in the inquiry and both sides should ensure the inquiry should conclude at the earliest.
40. In paragraph 5.8, the applicant submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court declared in Ajay Kumar Chandhan case as "We therefore direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months. If within this period the memorandum of charges/ charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/ employee. If the Memorandum of charges/ charge sheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of suspension". The applicant submits that the charge memo was served after 90 days in the applicant's case. Therefore the further extension of suspension for 180 SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 29 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE days issued from24-10-2022 is in violation of Hon'ble Apex Court order, therefore the above order is illegal and unsustainable in law.
41. To which the respondents in their corresponding paragraph have mentioned that the respondents deny the contention of the Applicant and reiterate reply to OA para 4 (n & o), 4 (p & q) and 4 (r & s) are of relevant which have already been discussed which are facts of the case. Further it is submitted that there is no illegal/vague charges or arbitrariness on the part of the Respondents and the contentions made by the Applicant is vehemently denied.
42. We have carefully gone through the facts of the case as it is a case of irregularity in the recruitment process. Numerous candidates indulged in malpractice and the employees of the respondent department and several contractors were also involved. Senior Officers of Group A and others were also involved. Hence, the inquiry and formulation of charges against each took some time, although the first suspension against the applicant was on 25.7.2022, and it was extended for another six months on 19.10.2022 and the charge sheet was served on the applicant on 21.12.2022. Yes, there was about 2 ½ month delay in the service of the charge sheet, but considering the SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 30 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE context of the case and that merely based on the facts of the case, the suspension was further extended on 19.4.2023 for six months and the same was revoked on 12.10.2023, nothing survives for us to decide about irregularities in the suspension as the suspension has already been revoked by the department. Moreover, the applicant has not obtained and placed before us the proceedings of the Committee which decided to extend the suspension of the applicant, which could have given more details regarding the said extension. The applicant has also not asked the respondents to furnish the said record. In the absence of the relevant records no adverse inference can be drawn against the department, as the initial suspension order itself clearly mentions the reason of suspension as, "contemplated Disciplinary Action", and as submitted by the respondents it was indeed a complex case of irregularity in appointments which may require time to collect evidence and obtain clearances before embarking upon disciplinary actions.
43. Further in paragraph 5.9, the applicant submits that Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi vide OM No.11012/17/2013-Esst(a) dated: 2-1-2014, SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.21 13:01:07+05'30' 31 O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE issued consolidated instruction regarding suspension of Government employees, according to which:
(a) suspension order should normally indicate the grounds for suspension.
(b) Where the suspension is on the grounds of contemplated proceedings, the charge should be served within three months.
(c) Where the charge sheet is not served within 3 months, the reasons for suspension should be communicated to the Government servant immediately on expiry of 3 months from the date of suspension. The applicant submits that the respondents violated all the 3 conditions.
Therefore the extension of suspension for further 180 days is illegal, arbitrary.
44. In paragraph 5.10, the applicant says that extension of suspension for 180 days from 24-10-2022 is in violation of Hon'ble Apex Court order in Ajoy kumar Chudhary case, and DOPT guidelines/ instructions on the subject. Therefore the extension of suspension for 180 days from24-10-2022 is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law.
45. Contra the respondents re-emphasised that the suspension has already been revoked. Hence, these grounds are not tenable.
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT
Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.21
13:01:07+05'30'
32
O.A.Nos.170/197/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
46. We have gone through the entire record. At this stage, when charge sheet is in order with 4 Annexures, i.e. Annexure 1 with Articles of charge, supported by Annexure II imputation of Articles of charge, Annexure III the seven documents relied, and Annexure IV three witnesses relied to sustain the charge; and the said charge sheet has been duly served on the applicant, we are of the considered opinion that the only way forward for the applicant is to participate actively in the inquiry and ensure that the department and the applicant co-operate and ensure that the inquiry is concluded expeditiously in the interest of justice and equity.
47. With these observations, we do not find any merit in the case of the applicant. Hence, we pass the following orders:
The Original Application is dismissed. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending, are also disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SV/
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT
Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.21
13:01:07+05'30'