Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Krishan Dev Mehto vs M/O Finance, D/O Revenue on 22 November, 2024
1
Item No.3 (Nainital) O.A. No. 1036/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
(Circuit Sitting at Nainital)
O.A. No. 1036/2022
Reserved on : 18.10.2024
Pronounced on : 22.11.2024
Hon'ble Mr. D. S. Mahra, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member (A)
Krishan Dev Mehto,
Aged 63 years,
S/o Late Aghori Mehto,
R/o C/o Col. Bharat Joshi,
A-10, Lane A, Kewal Vihar,
Shashtradhara Road, Dehradun,
Uttarakhand-248001. ...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Ramandeep Singh with Mr. Prateek
Kanaujia)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Commissioner of Income Tax,
HQ, Dehradun.
3. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range-1, Dehradun.
4. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range-1, Dehradun. ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. T C Aggarwal)
2
Item No.3 (Nainital) O.A. No. 1036/2022
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member(A) By way of the present O.A., filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief:-
"(a) Quash the impugned order dated and 15.01.2014 passed by the Respondent No. 01 (ANNEXURE A- 1);
(b) Quash the impugned order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure A-&h
(c) Issue the directions commanding the respondents to pay pension, gratuity and other consequential retiral benefits to the applicant.
(d) Issue the directions commanding the respondents to pay arrears of pay from the date of removal from service to the applicant;
(e) Issue the directions commanding the respondents to pay arrears of difference of pay and subsistence allowance paid to the applicant;
(f) Issue the directions commanding the respondents to pay Rs.
15,000/- as cost of litigation;
(g) Issue any other directions which this Hon'ble Tribunal thinks fit and proper in the instant case."
2. The brief facts, as stated in the O.A., are that a case was registered vide CBI case No.4 of 1997 in the year 1997 against the applicant and others under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC, and was prosecuted in 3 Item No.3 (Nainital) O.A. No. 1036/2022 the Court of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI), Dehradun. During the pendency of the case, the applicant was suspended from the post of water-man-cum-farrash peon, as on 15.07.1997. Suspension was revoked on 29.07.1999. Vide the judgment, dated 22.12.2011, the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Dehradun, in the aforesaid case, imposed rigorous imprisonment and also fine of Rs.80,000/-, under Section 120B of the IPC, and rigorous imprisonment of one year and also fine of Rs.40,000/-, under Section 420 of the IPC.
3. Being aggrieved with the said order, the applicant filed Criminal Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand, at Nainital, in Crl. Appeal No. 341/2011. The Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand, in the aforesaid appeal, enlarged the applicant on bail and passed an interim order, dated 29.12.2011, wherein the applicant was directed to pay 50% of the fine imposed by the Trial Court. In compliance with the aforesaid interim order, the applicant deposited Rs.60,000/-, i.e., 50% of the total fine amount, imposed by the Trial Court on 11.01.2012. 4 Item No.3 (Nainital) O.A. No. 1036/2022
4. Consequently, Respondent No. 3, i.e., the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Dehradun, vide order, dated 21.01.2013, suspended the applicant. Accordingly, Respondent No. 4, i.e., the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Dehradun, issued a show cause notice to the applicant on the basis of the charges against the applicant, vide letter, dated 18.02.2013. In response to the aforesaid show cause notice, the applicant submitted representation, dated 25.02.2013, stating that, since the department itself was the complainant in the aforesaid case, the department is well aware of the facts of the case. Respondent No. 3 issued letter, dated 10.12.2013, affording the opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant. The applicant submitted representation, dated 16.12.2013, in reply to the above letter. Respondent No. 3 issued formal notice, dated 26.12.2013, under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, to the applicant, affording opportunity of making a representation, whereupon, the applicant made a representation, dated 08.01.2014, before Respondent No. 3, who, in turn, passed the impugned order, dated 5 Item No.3 (Nainital) O.A. No. 1036/2022 15.01.2014, for removal of the applicant from the service of peon.
5. The applicant filed an appeal before Respondent No. 2, on 18.03.2014, stating therein that the allegation against the applicant in the subject judgment was of introducing a person while opening an account in the bank and there was no evidence to prove that the applicant had any knowledge of preparation of refund voucher or had ever been involved in operation of the said account. The appellate authority has not yet decided the appeal, dated 18.03.2014, assailing the impugned order, dated 15.01.2014.
6. The applicant already attained the age of superannuation, on 31.01.2019. He made a representation, dated 18.02.2022, to Respondent No. 3, seeking the pensionary and other benefits, but to no avail. The applicant submitted another reminder, dated 04.05.2022, to Respondent No. 3, seeking the benefits. In reply to the aforesaid representations, Respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order, dated 02.08.2022, rejecting 6 Item No.3 (Nainital) O.A. No. 1036/2022 the relief sought by the applicant in the representations dated 18.02.2022 and 04.05.2022, stating that any change or substitution in the order, dated 15.01.2014, passed by the disciplinary authority, is not required.
7. Being aggrieved with the impugned order, dated 02.08.2022, passed by Respondent No. 2, the applicant filed an appeal, dated 18.08.2022, which was rejected vide an order, dated 06.09.2022. Hence, the present O.A.
8. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, stating that the disciplinary authority, while passing the orders, dated 15.01.2014 and 02.08.2022, had considered all the material facts on record and, as such, there is no illegality in the orders passed by the respondents, as alleged by the applicant.
9. The respondents, in their reply, have stated that, after perusing the Hon'ble High Court's order, dt.08.12.2021, it is crystal clear that the Hon'ble High Court did not acquit the applicant of the charges under Sections 420 and 120B, IPC. The Hon'ble High Court merely altered the sentence passed by the Special Judge, 7 Item No.3 (Nainital) O.A. No. 1036/2022 CBI, Dehradun, vide the judgment, dated 22.12.2011, and gave the applicant herein the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Hon'ble High Court made no change in the conviction order passed by the Special CBI Judge. Therefore, any change or substitution in the orders, dated 15.01.2014 and 02.08.2022, passed by the disciplinary authority/Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Dehradun, is not required.
10. The respondents have also contended that, vide the show cause notice, dated 26.12.2013, the applicant was afforded opportunity of personal hearing and submission of written explanation. In response thereto, the applicant, vide letter, dated 08.01.2014, replied to the aforesaid show cause notice. After due consideration of the facts and the submissions made by the applicant, the order for his removal from service was passed, vide order, dated 15.01.2014. The disciplinary authority has followed the due process of law and the fundamental rights of the applicant under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have not been violated.
8Item No.3 (Nainital) O.A. No. 1036/2022
11. The respondents, in their reply, have also stated that the applicant opened Savings Bank Account No. 3378 in the Syndicate Bank, Haridwar, on 07.03.1989, and deposited therein, on different dates, the refund vouchers issued fraudulently, in conspiracy with one Krishan Kumar, UDC. Thus, the applicant amassed huge wealth which was not only disproportionate to his declared sources of income, but was also collected by defrauding the exchequer. Thus, the applicant had failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant and also contravened the provisions of Rule 18 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, by not intimating to the department deposits exceeding Rs.5,000/- made in his savings bank account.
12. The respondents have also contended that request for reconsideration of the order for removal from service and substitution by an order of discharge in order to draw pension and other benefits has been rejected, vide order, 9 Item No.3 (Nainital) O.A. No. 1036/2022 dated 06.09.2022, as the appeal is not covered under Rule 23 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
13. Sri Ramandeep Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has filed his written submission on 29.10.2024, reiterating the points already made in the main OA. He further relied upon the following judgments in support of his claim:
i. Shanker Dass vs. Union of India 1985 AIR 772, 1985 SCR (3) 163, AIR 1985 Supreme Court. ii.Jagshir Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2010 in Criminal Revision No.338 of 2002.
iii.Beg Singh vs. General Manager, Vijay Bank and Ors. (2005)ILLJ467RAJ, RLW 2004 (4) RAJ 2404, 2004 (3) WLC 404.
iv. Hav.Ved Prakash Sangwan vs Union of India 2000 V AD(Delhi).
14. Sri T.C.Agarwal, learned Sr.C.G.S.C., representing the Respondents, has made his written submission on 04.11.2024. While reiterating the arguments advanced earlier, it has been further urged that the main 10 Item No.3 (Nainital) O.A. No. 1036/2022 submission of the applicant is that he has been given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, hence, disqualification attaching to his conviction could not form the basis of the order of removal and the applicant would be entitled to the protection under Section 12 of the said Act, which is not tenable, as the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Bakshis Ram (1990) 2 SCC 426 held that "shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law" does not bar inflicting of departmental punishment for misconduct which led to his conviction. Section 12 of this Act deals with the sentence to be imposed by the Court, but the stigma of conviction remains unaffected. In the State of MP Vs. Man Singh (2019)10 SCC 161, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the extension of benefits regarding retention/continuation of service is not permissible, even in a case where the High Court grants benefit of probation to the accused. Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order that the employee be retained in service through grant of benefit of continuation of service.11
Item No.3 (Nainital) O.A. No. 1036/2022
15. It is also pleaded that, in the instant case, the Hon'ble Court has not acquitted the convict from the offences under Sections 420 and 120B, IPC, and has only altered the sentence part by giving benefit of Section-12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Hence, looking into the conduct and conviction of the applicant, any change or substitution in the orders, dated 15.01.2014 and 02.08.2022, is not desirable in the interest of justice. The instant OA, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed, according to the Respondents.
16. We have considered the pleadings and the materials placed before us. It is a well-settled law that prosecution does not act as a bar on departmental proceedings and even in cases of acquittal in criminal prosecution, department may proceed with action against the charged/acquitted official, as per rules.
17. In the instant case, as is argued on behalf of the Respondents, the High Court order, dt.18.12.2021, has merely granted the applicant the benefit under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, by reducing the 12 Item No.3 (Nainital) O.A. No. 1036/2022 fine and directing him to maintain peace and good behavior. It is not to say that the punishment has been entirely waived off or the conviction by the CBI Special Court set aside. The judgments relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant do not come to his rescue, as the facts and circumstances in those cases are different from those in this OA. The issue is no longer res- integra, as seen from the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of MP Vs. Man Singh (2019)10 SCC 161, that the learned counsel for Respondents has relied upon.
18. In view of the above, we do not find any merits in the OA. The OA is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
[
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (D. S. Mahra)
Member (A) Member (J)
22.11.2024
/dhruv/ps/