Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
P.N. Mishra vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 22 July, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.972 of 2012
Jabalpur, this Wednesday, the 22nd day of July, 2015
MR. G.P. SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
MR. U. SARATHCHANDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
P.N. Mishra, s/o late Dr. Shri B.N. Mishra,
Aged about 56 years, Scientist C T.F.R.I.,
Mandla Road, Jabalpur, R/o Plot No.9, Block No.9,
Arihant Homes, Jalaram Bapu Nagar, Mandla Road,
Tilhari, Jabalpur 482001. -Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Amardeep Gupta)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India through Secretary,
Ministry of Environment & Forest, Govt. of India,
New Delhi 110001.
2. Director General,
Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education,
P.O. New Forest, Dehradun 248006.
3. Director, Tropical Forest Research Institute (T.F.R.I.),
P.O.R.F.R.C Mandla Road, Jabalpur 482001 (M.P.).
4. Chief Vigilance Officer,
Council of Forestry Research and Education,
P.O. New, Forest, Dehradun 248006.
5. Inquiry Authority, Scientist E, T.F.R.I.,
Jabalpur 482001, Mandla Road, Jabalpur - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.K. Mishra)
O R D E R
By U. Sarathchandran, JM :-
Applicant is aggrieved by Annexure A-1 order dated 6.11.2012 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on him. According to him Annexure A-1 order is not stating any reasons or any grounds or as to why and on what basis the respondents authorities have taken the decision of imposing such a major penalty without following the mandatory procedure prescribed in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Applicant alleges that he was not served with any chargesheet or any communication indicating the date of inquiry. He states that he had submitted leave application on medical reasons. According to him the respondents wanted to ensure that the inquiry against him is conducted ex-parte and hence they sent the communication in his Bhopal address where he is not staying at present, although his correct address in Jabalpur was available with the respondents. He seeks following relief:
It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Honble Tribunal be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 6.11.12 (A/1) issued by respondent no.3 and further be pleased to quash the order No. II-60/2010/CVO/ICFRE issued by the respondent no.2.
Be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant on service and further be pleased to direct them to release the all salary and the consequential benefit due from the month of December 2011 to June 2012 and thereafter from the month of October 2012 till today.
Any other appropriate writ, direction or order may be passed.
2. Respondents case is that the applicant was proceeded against for a forged TA bill of Rs.14,920/- without conducting the official tour and claiming that he had conducted the journey in a vehicle hired from M/s R.K. Travels, Jabalpur. According to the respondents, such hiring of vehicle was denied by the said travel agency. According to the respondents, chargesheet was served to the applicant but he did not submit any representation and therefore inquiry officer was appointed to conduct the departmental enquiry. Applicant never took part in the inquiry though the inquiry officer sent several communications in the known address of the applicant including his address at Bhopal as per the service record. Therefore, the inquiry officer conducted inquiry ex-parte and submitted Annexure R-6 inquiry report acceptance of which was refused by the applicant when the same was sent by Speed Post, stating that he is not on duty. Considering the nature of misconduct and the material available in support of the allegation, Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement of service vide the order dated 31.12.2012. The punishment order was also sent by Speed Post which returned un-served. Later, it was affixed on the outer door of applicants house. Respondents pray for rejecting the O.A.
3. We have heard the counsel appearing on both sides and perused the record.
4. Annexure A-1 is the impugned order. It reads as follows:
dk;kZy; vknsk egkfunskd] Hkkjrh; okfudh vuqla/kku ,o fk{kk ifj"kn~] nsgjknwu ds vknsk dzeakd II-60/2010/CVO/ICFRE] fnuakd 31 vDVwcj 2012 ds }kjk Jh ih-,u- feJk] oSKkfud&lh- dks vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr fn;s tkus ds dkj.k mUgsa fnuakd 31/10/2012 <vijkUg~= ls dk;ZHkkj eqDr fd;k tkrk gS A
5. The impugned order is a cryptic and non-speaking order without stating any reasons for passing such order terminating the services of the applicant. It is trite that giving reason is one of the fundamentals of good administration, as held by the Apex Court in Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and another v. Munna Lal Jain, (2005) 10 SCC 84. The Apex Court quoting Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree1 observed in Damoh Panna Sagars case (supra) as follows:
Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the inscrutable face of the sphinx, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
6. In the light of the above pithly stated position of law by the Apex Court, we have no hesitation to call Annexure A-1 by its very face a non-speaking order. It should be held that Annexure A-1 is violative of the principles of natural justice, as observed by the Apex Court in Damoh Panna Sagar case (supra). Therefore, without any further adjudication in this matter, we hereby quash and set aside Annexure A-1. The matter is remitted to the competent authority of the respondents to conduct a further inquiry beginning with serving of chargesheet to the applicant. The competent authority shall fix a time schedule for conducting the proceeding of the further inquiry. The applicant shall co-operate with the inquiry proceedings adhering to the aforesaid time schedule, without any demur. It is further directed that the inquiry proceedings shall be completed within six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. A well reasoned speaking order shall be passed by Disciplinary Authority. It shall be communicated to the applicant. The applicant shall be reinstated forthwith.
Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.
(U. Sarathchandran) (G.P.Singhal) Judicial Member Administrative Member am 1 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) ?? ?? ?? ?? 3 OA 972/2012 Page 3 of 4