Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
F W Dsouza vs Deptt Of Electronics Information ... on 7 February, 2024
I G4 Ne ll0/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
ab
Dated this \Jocac dauvthe oy th February, 2024
N
nas
CORAM: Ms. Harvinder Raur Oberoi, Member (J)
Mr, Shri Krishna, Member {A}
Shri F.W. Dsouza,
Age 63 years, Ex-Secretary, .
SAMEER Employees'
Association - Mumbai,
Residing at :1/10, Cardinal
Gracias CHS
Marve Road, Mithchowki
Next to Fr. dustin Ground
Malad (West), Mumbai ~ 400 O64.
Smt. M. Sridhar,
Age 61 vears, Ex-Secretary,
SAMEER Employees!'
Association ~ Mumbai
Residing at : Flat No.3,
Aasikana CHS Ltd., .
Cheddanagar, Chembur, .
Mumbai - 400 089. ; ... Applicants
{ By Advocate Shri V.A. Nagrani}
VERSUS
Union of India Through the
Secretary, Ministry of Blectronics
& Information Technology (MEITY),
Electronics Niketan,
6, CGO Complex, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi - Lido 003.
Chairman, Governing Council
of SAMEER
he
Ministry of Electronics
& Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan,
6, CGO Complex, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi - 1160 003,
Director-General Society for
Applisd Microwave Blectronics
Engineering and Research
(SAMEERR},
SAMEER, IIT Bombay
Campus, IIT Powai, Mumbai
400 O76,
Chief Vigilance Officear-Meity
Ministry of Electronics
& Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan,
6, CGO Complex, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi - 110 003,
Chief Vigilance Officer-
SAMEER
Ministry of Electronics
& Information Technology,.
Blectronics Niketan,
6, CGO Complex, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi - 1LiO 9003.
Dr. Ananta Lal Das Fx-
Director ~ SAMEFER
Residing at : C-5/65,
Kendriya Vihar
Off VIP Road, Behind
Haldiram
PO Kolkata Airport, Kolkata
~ 700-052,
OA No 10/2024
10,
3
Dr. {Smt.} S R Ranade Ex
Director-General SAMBEER
Dean R&D, Pune Institute of
Compute Technology
Survey No.27, Off Pune
Satara Road,
Near Trimurti Chowk
Dhankawadi, Pune - 411 043.
Shri K EK Radhakrishnan
Nair, Ex Sr Administrative
Office / (OSD)
Resident of 6, Girikun}
SAMEER OQrtrs., TIT Bombay
Campus, Hill Side, Powai,
Mumbai ~ 400 O76.
i Vinod Rumar Sharma,
Registrar ~ SAMEER
Resident of 7, Girikun}
SAMEBR OQrtrs., IIT Bombay
Campus, Hill Side, Powai,
Mumbai ~ 400 076.
Shri R Krishnan, Programme
Director - SAMEER
Resident of 4, Girikunt
SAMEER Ortrs., IIT Bombay
Campus, Hill Side, Fowai,
Mumbai ~- 400 076.
Shri § Sprasadh, Programme
'Director - SAMEER
Resident of Girikun4
SaAMERR Ortrs., IIT Bombay
Campus, Hill Side, Powai,
Mumbai - 400 O76.
OA No 10/2024
4 O4 No 11/2024
12. Central Vigilance
Commission
Central Vigilance
Commission
SatarktaBhavan, Block-A
GPO Complex, INA, New
Delhi - 110 923, ~.» Respondents
Order reserved on : 02° February, 2024
Order pronounced on ty7th Cebruary dow
wa
ORDER
Per: Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (3} MA No.215/2024 has been filed by the applicants for joining together. The same is allowed for the reasons stated therein.
2. The Original Application has been filed by the two retired employees of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology who were working in SAMEER, IIT Mumbai Campus.
3. Applicants, who besides being retired employees, also claim to be office bearers of tha SAMEER Employees Assaciation, Mumbai, which is a registered Employees ASsSoclation. While working in their capacity as office bearers of the Association, five complaints were made by them in the years 2010, 2015, 2018 and 2021 on different issues to the.
5 Od No. 110/2024vigilance unit of the Ministry (Respondents Nos.4 & 5} and also to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC} (Respondent No.12).
&, Applicants' grievance in the present OA is that after having filed these complaints, they have not been informed the outcome of the complaints. It is submitted that no completion of investigation report is available nor any corrective action/disciplinary action has been taken against the persons against whom the complaints were filed. No one has been made answerable for the wrong doings. It has also been submitted that applicants had to suffer the consequences of filing complaints as they were personally targeted, harassed and victimised on several occasions. Thus depriving them of their legitimate dues in terms of differentiate treatment and denying personal claims/promotions and even withholding of retiral dues. Hence, aggrieved of the aforesaid actions/inactions, the following reliefs have been sought :
"(a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondent No.l, 4, 5 and $ i.e. Secretary-Meity, CVO Meity, CVO-SAMEER and CVC to forthwith conduct thorough investigation on 6 Od No. 110/2024 the complaints submitted oy the applicants and misconduct as reported above and take appropriate action ana Provide the investigation report to the applicants/complainants and hold the delinquent officials answeraole for their acts oF omission/commission.
(D} Costs of the application ba Pravided for, fc) The aggrieved employees be compensated for the loss suffered, a} Any other and further order as this fon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the ature and circumstances of the case be passed, We have gone through the pleadings in the The OA consists of bundle of facts, unrelated with each other, General pleadings have been made in fespect of various complaints, made on different issues, against different persons. in fact ethics and morals of the Persons, complained against, have also been questioned. In para 4.14 of the OA, applicants have stated their harassment and Victimisation in multiple wavs. No details pertaining to their victimisation, if at all, have been provided.
6. Counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that the OA has been filed complaining inaction on the complaints filed from time to time. It was 4 OA No. 110/2024 submitted that applicants have suffered immensely due their activities. That they being office bearers were required to raise their voice against the Lilegalities in the office of the respondents. However, respondent authorities have not taken any notice of their complaints. on our query as to what is the individual grievance of the applicant, there Was moO answer.
7. We have heard the lsarned counsel for the applicants and also perused the file. In our considered opinion, the Original Application is not maintainable. Since the relief claimed is with respect Lo how the respondents run their office/department. How the respondents manage their department is their prerogative. Applicants may have made suggestions/complaints seeking improvement in the structure and working. However, this cannot be grievance to agitate before the Tribunal. Remedy lies elsewhere.
8 OA No [10/2024 &. In view of the above, the Original Application is dismissed being bereft of merit.
Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.
(SHEL Krishnay (Harvitider Kaur Oberoi) Member {A) Member (7) Ma.