Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Dr Ajit Kumar Shrivastava vs M/O Environment And Forests on 13 January, 2022
1 O.A. No. 200/00076/2021
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/00076/2021
Jabalpur, this Thursday, the 13th day of January, 2022
HON'BLE SHRI RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MS. NAINI JAYASEELAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Dr. Ajit Kumar Shrivastava, S/o Late Shri Brij Mohan
Shrivastava, Aged about 57 years, Additional Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest, Address: APCCF Office (Working
Plan) Satpuda Bhawan, Bhopal 462001 -Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri Manoj Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India, through its Secretary
Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change
Jorbag, New Delhi 110001
2. State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary of
Forest Department, Mantralaya Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal (MP)-462001
3. Chief Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh,
Mantralaya Vallab Bhawan, Bhopal (MP)
4. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Head of Forest
Force (HOFF)) Forest Department, Satpura Bhawan
Bhopal (MP) -462001
5. Shri Ashok Barnwal, Principal Secretary Department
Of Forest State of M.P., Mantralaya Vallabh Bhawan
Bhopal (MP)-462001
6. Shri Anand Kumar Singh, PCCF (Research
Extension & Lok Vaniki) Bhopal, M.P. 462001- Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri Devesh Jain for State of M.P
& Shri Bhupesh Tiwari for respondent No.5)
(Date of reserving the order:-16.11.2021)
Page 1 of 11
2 O.A. No. 200/00076/2021
ORDER
By Ramesh Singh Thakur, JM:-
By way of this Original Application the applicant is challenging the impugned order dated 12.05.2020 (Annexure A-1) & dated 04.09.2020 (Annexure A-2) passed by respondent No. 2.
2. The applicant has prayed for the following relief in this O.A. "8.Relief sought:-
(i) Summon the entire relevant record from the possession of the official respondents for its kind perusal.
(ii) Command and direct that sealed cover procedure adopted by the DPC held on 12.05.2020 is illegal and bad in law, further pleased to direct opening of the sealed cover and giving effect to the recommendation as contained therein forthwith.
(iii) To further set aside and hold that the consequential promotion order of 04.09.2020, whereby respondent No. 6 has been promoted by superseding applicant, is illegal.
(iv) Command and direct the official respondents to grant all consequential benefits including restoration of seniority above the immediate juniors with all consequential benefits like pay, perks and status and arrears thereon with interest, on the promotional post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest
(v) Not pressed.
(vi) Any other order/orders, which this Hon'ble court deems fit proper.
(vii) Cost of the petition may also kindly be awarded/any other order/orders, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit proper."Page 2 of 11 3 O.A. No. 200/00076/2021
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is an Indian Forest Service Officer (IFS 1987 batch) and at the relevant time, applicant was posted as Chief Conservator of Forest, Jabalpur. Within the jurisdiction of applicant, against a Timber Merchant, a forest offence was registered and appropriate action taken including filing of challan in the Court of Learned Additional District Judge at Niwas, Distt. Mandla etc. The family members of the said Timber Merchant made concocted false allegations against the applicant leading to a complaint wherein on 09.12.2015 (Annexure A-3), a Preliminary Inquiry committee consisting of the then Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department and Principal Chief Conservator of Forest of the Forest Department was constituted to inquire into the allegations of the Timber Merchant. The report of the enquiry committee came on 17.02.2016 (Annexure A-4) wherein the allegations against the applicant have been found false. However, the same led to a show-cause notice dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure A-5). In the meanwhile, DPC was convened and the case of the applicant was put in the sealed cover. The action of adopting the procedure of sealed cover was challenged by the applicant herein, which was allowed by Page 3 of 11 4 O.A. No. 200/00076/2021 this Tribunal vide Original Application No. 623/2018 vide order dated 01.08.2018(Annexure A-7). The applicant filed various representations from June 2017 to April 2019 for quashment of show-cause notice but the respondent department harassed the applicant by causing unreasonable delay in concluding the show-cause notice dated 22.04.2016 and affecting his promotion and therefore had filed Original Application No. 387/2019 praying for quashment of show- cause notice and so also prayed for direction that pendency of a show-cause notice would not affect the promotion of the applicant. The said O.A. is still pending and there is an interim protection in favour of the applicant however, flouting the same, the concerned respondents adopted sealed cover procedure and kept on filling incorrect affidavits before this Tribunal in Contempt Petition No. 17/2020. In the meantime, without considering the interim order of this Tribunal, and without having any legal backing or justification have adopted sealed cover procedure against the applicant in the DPC and he has not been promoted to the next higher post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF). The juniors to the applicant, respondent No.6 was promoted and the applicant has been superseded. Hence this Original Application. Page 4 of 11 5 O.A. No. 200/00076/2021
4. The main grounds for challenging the action of the respondents is that an inordinate long time which has been consumed from the issuance of show-cause notice dated 22.04.2016, wherein formal department inquiry is yet to begin is itself conclusively demonstrating that applicant has been subjected to injustice wherein inordinate long time has been consumed in preliminary investigation. The another ground for challenge is that the adoption of sealed cover procedure in the case of applicant is adopted contrary to the instructions of Union of India as also State of Madhya Pradesh.
5. The respondents have filed their short reply on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, 3 & 4 in which in their preliminary submission it is stated by the respondents that the applicant is basically challenging the proceedings of DPC held on 12.05.2020 and also challenged the consequential promotion order of respondent No.6 dated 04.09.2020 who was immediate junior to applicant. The respondents further submitted that the applicant has already filed Original Application No. 387/2019 before this Tribunal, in which the subject matter and the cause of action is also same, which is still pending adjudication before this Tribunal. It is further submitted by the respondents that DPC dated 12.05.2020 Page 5 of 11 6 O.A. No. 200/00076/2021 was held during the pendency of O.A. No. 387/2019 and consequential promotion order dated 04.09.2020 was also passed during pendency of that Original Application. The applicant has also filed CP 17/2020 against the order of DPC dated 12.05.2020 in pending O.A. 387/2019. The order passed by this Tribunal dated 14.08.2020 passed in CP No. 17/2020 by which it was held by this Tribunal that sealed cover procedure adopted against the applicant was in violation of interim order passed in favour of applicant, therefore ordered to open sealed cover of the applicant. Against such order dated 14.08.2020, the State of M.P. filed W.P. No. 12627/2020 before the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur and the said Writ Petition was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur on 13.10.2020 by giving finding that order of opening sealed cover cannot be ordered in Contempt Petition.
5.1 It is further submitted by the respondents that order of Hon'ble High Court of M.P. passed in Writ Petition No. 12627/2020 does not give any fresh cause of action to the applicant to challenge the DPC proceedings and also consequential promotion by filing present fresh O.A. Page 6 of 11 7 O.A. No. 200/00076/2021 5.2 It is further submitted by the respondents that DPC subsequent promotion of respondent No.6 was done during pendency of pending O.A. 387/2019, therefore, if applicant has any grievance against it then it is to be raised in pending O.A. 387/2019 by way of amendment and otherwise not by filing fresh Original Application.
6. The applicant has filed the rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents Nos. 2 ,3 & 4 wherein it is submitted that the applicant filed O.A. No. 387/2019 as there was a delay of concluding the show-cause notice dated 22.04.2016 and the delay was attributable to the respondents. The applicant further submitted that the main relief in Original Application No.387/2019 was to quash the show-cause notice dated 22.04.2016 on the ground of in-ordinate delay. After having an interim protection of this Tribunal in Original Application No. 387/2019, applicant's promotion has been withheld in DPC dated 12.05.2020 and junior to the applicant has been promoted on 04.09.2020.
7. The respondents have filed their additional reply wherein the respondents have re-iterated its earlier stand taken in the short reply.
Page 7 of 11 8 O.A. No. 200/00076/2021
8. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the pleadings and the documents annexed therewith.
9. From the pleadings it is admitted fact that the show cause notice was issued to the applicant on 22.04.2016 (Annexure A-5). The DPC was convened and the case of the applicant was put in sealed cover. The applicant has challenged the show cause notice in O.A. No. 387/2019 and has prayed for quashment of the show cause notice. During the pendency of that O.A. the DPC was again convened and the case of the applicant was again put in a sealed cover whereby the applicant was considered for the post of PCCF. In that DPC the juniors to the applicant (respondent No.6) was promoted. The applicant had filed this O.A. on the ground that in similar circumstances earlier the applicant had filed the Original Application No. 623/2018 and this Tribunal has quashed the action of the respondent department on the analogy that when no charge has been framed against the applicant no criminal case is pending and in such circumstances putting of the case of the applicant in a sealed cover is against the law. In this O.A. also the applicant had Page 8 of 11 9 O.A. No. 200/00076/2021 relied upon the judgment passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 623/2018.
10. On the other side the counsel for the respondents submits that the DPC held on 12.05.2020 has been challenged whereby the respondent No. 6 has been promoted on 04.09.2020 who is immediate junior to the applicant. Secondly, the further contention of the respondents is that Original Application No. 387/2019 is pending on the same cause of action. The contention of the respondents has already been dealt with when the notices was issued in this Original Application and this Tribunal is of the view that the present O.A. has been filed against the action of the respondent department in putting the case of the applicant in a sealed cover and junior has been promoted. So at this stage the same objection raised by the respondents is not tenable.
11. In the instant application the question for determination is that whether the procedure followed by the respondents for putting the case of the applicant in a sealed cover is as per law?
Page 9 of 11 10 O.A. No. 200/00076/2021
12. From the pleadings it is itself very clear that till date no charge-sheet has been framed by the disciplinary authority and secondly no criminal proceedings is pending before the Court of Law.
13. The counsel for the applicant had also relied upon the judgment passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 623/2018. This law position regarding putting of the case of the applicant in a sealed cover has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. vs. K.V.Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the procedure of "Sealed Cover" and held that the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only after the charge memo is served on the concerned officials. The same was followed by the Hon'ble apex Court in the matters of Union of India vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar, (2013) 4 SCC 161. So the law has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
14. In the instant case also, no charge-sheet has been served till date and the putting of the case of the applicant in a sealed cover in the DPC held on 20.05.2020 is contrary to the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Page 10 of 11 11 O.A. No. 200/00076/2021
15. So this is a fit case where the respondent department has resorted the procedure of sealed cover contrary to law.
16. In view of this position, Original Application is allowed and the respondents are directed to open the sealed cover and give effect to the recommendations contained therein with all consequential benefits.
17. The said exercise be done within a period of eight weeks after receiving the certified copy of this order.
18. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed with no order as to costs.
(Naini Jayaseelan) (Ramesh Singh Thakur)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
rn
Page 11 of 11