Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Uttar Pradesh. vs Ministry Of Environment on 16 September, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
OA NO.3213/2015
(Re: INTERIM PRAYER)
RESERVED ON 11.09.2015
PRONOUNCED ON 16.09.2015
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. K.N. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)
V.K. Bahuguna
Former Director General, ICFRE
Aged about 61 years,
R/o Flat No.A-101,
Jagdambe Apartment,
C-58/25 Opposite TOT Mall,
Near Fortis Hospital
Sector-62, Noida-201309,
Uttar Pradesh. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Harsh Pathak)
VERSUS
1. Ministry of Environment,
Forest & Climate Change
Through:
Secretary,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Aliganj,
Jorbagh Road,
New Delhi-110 003.
2. Cabinet Secretariat
Through:
Cabinet Secretary
Government of India
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi -110004. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar)
:ORDER:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY, MEMBER (J):
Heard Shri Harsh Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the prayer for interim order.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant, referring to the charge memo dated 20.05.2015 issued by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Office Memo dated 04.05.2011 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (DOP&T), has submitted that since under the said Office Memo, complaints against the officers, who do not hold the post of Secretary, but whose pay-scales are equivalent to that of Secretary to the Government of India, are required to be looked into by the concerned Ministry/Department and the matter is required to be referred to Cabinet Secretariat (Group of Secretaries headed by Cabinet Secretary) if further action is deemed necessary, no charge sheet ought to have been issued by the Disciplinary Authority without clearance from the Cabinet Secretariat. Referring to the reply dated 04.08.2015 furnished by DS & CPIO, Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat (Vigilance & Complaint Cell), pursuant to the RTI application filed by the applicant on 29.06.2015, it has also been submitted that it is evident there from that no request has been received by the Cabinet Secretariat for consideration as to whether the complaint against the applicant needs any further action. The learned counsel referring to the charges leveled against the applicant by the aforesaid charge memo dated 20.05.2015 also submits that some of the charges have, in fact, been stayed by the Guwahati Bench of the Tribunal and some have already been dropped and hence the charge memo dated 20.05.2015 has to be stayed. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that further proceeding, in the disciplinary proceeding pursuant to the aforesaid charge memo dated 20.05.2015 may be stayed by this Tribunal.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, referring to the averments made in the short reply filed, has submitted that the aforesaid Office Memo dated 04.05.2011 is not applicable to the applicant, he having not held position equivalent to Secretary, though his salary is in the apex scale of Rs.80,000/-. The learned counsel further submitted that even if that Office Memo is applicable to the applicant, it is not always necessary that the complaint against the officers drawing salary in the apex scale of Rs.80,000/- needs to be looked into by the Group of Secretaries headed by Cabinet Secretary, before initiation of any charge memo, as it provides that the matter may be referred to Group of Secretaries headed by Cabinet Secretary. The learned counsel further submitted that whether any allegation leveled against the applicant has been stayed by any Bench of this Tribunal and as to whether any charges have already been dropped, the same can well be looked into during the departmental enquiry proceeding. The learned counsel further submitted that it is not a fit case where this Tribunal may stay further proceeding pursuant to the charge memo dated 20.05.2015.
4. Charge memo dated 20.05.2015 was issued by the Disciplinary Authority, leveling certain allegations, asking the applicant to show cause as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The aforesaid Office Memo dated 04.05.2011 has been issued relating to the procedure to be followed regarding handling of complaints against the officers who do not hold the post of Secretary, but whose pay-scales are equivalent to that of Secretary to Government of India (Secretary-equivalent position) and who are functioning under administrative Ministries/Departments. A decision was taken by the Government of India that such complaints shall be looked into by the concerned Ministry/Department and, thereafter, the matter may be referred to the Cabinet Secretariat (Group of Secretaries headed by Cabinet Secretary), if such complaint requires further action.
5. It prima facie appears from the aforesaid memo that such decision has been taken based on the proposal to bring within its purview officers empanelled as Secretary holding equivalent positions, Chairpersons of CBDT, CBEC, autonomous and statutory bodies, in the apex scale of Rs.80,000/- and retired Secretaries. We are, therefore, of the prima facie opinion that the said office memo has to be read on the basis of the aforesaid proposal and not beyond that. The applicant though is in the apex scale of Rs.80,000/-, he has not been empanelled as Secretary holding equivalent position of Chairperson of CBDT, CBEC or any autonomous and statutory bodies. The applicant is also not a retired Secretary. Hence we are of the prima facie view that the said office memo may not be applicable to the applicant. This view is our prima facie view, for the purpose of consideration of the prayer for interim order only. The applicability or otherwise of the said Office Memo to the applicant would definitely be gone into in details at the time of hearing of the OA.
6. Vide charge memo dated 20.05.2015 four charges have been leveled against the applicant. The first charge is relating to review of the APARs of officials for the period 2009-10 by the applicant, though he is allegedly not competent to do so. The second charge is violation of the rules in giving promotions to the Scientists/officials by revoking the penalty and creating posts for which, he was as DG, ICFRE, allegedly was not competent. The third charge is relating to incurring expenditure of Rs.42.54 lakhs for renovation of residence of the DG, ICFRE and Director, FRI, Dehradun and conversion of the same, as Council House and University House without any approval. The forth charge is based on eight different allegations mentioned in the charge sheet. There may be stay order passed by Guwahati Bench of this Tribunal relating to one of these allegations. There may also be an allegation, which has been dropped by the Department. The fact remains that according to the applicant himself, all the charges leveled against him vide charge memo dated 20.05.2015, have either not been stayed by any Bench of this Tribunal nor have been dropped by the Department. The applicant very well may raise such issue in the disciplinary proceeding and also before the Disciplinary Authority.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the applicant is not entitled to the interim relief i.e. stay of further proceeding pursuant to the aforesaid charge memo dated 20.05.2015. Hence the prayer for interim relief is rejected.
8. List the OA on 02.11.2015. The respondents shall file their response by 12.10.2015. The applicant may file his rejoinder, if any, by 26.10.2015.
(K.N. Shrivastava) (B.P. Katakey)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jk/