Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kamla vs M/O Science And Technology on 6 October, 2022
Item 9
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2724/2017
This the 6th day of October, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Smt. Kamla Devi, Age 72 years
W/o Late Sh. Chander Kant Ravivanshi
R/o 208, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg
Mazara Post Office Wali Gali
Dehradun (Uttarakhand). ...Applicant
(By Advocate:Mr. Lalta Prasad)
Versus
1. Union of India & Ors.
Through
Secretary
Ministry of Science & Technology
Department of Science & Technology
Technology Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director
Office of the Director Survey (AIR)
West Block No.4, R. K. Puram
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Manish Kumar)
2
O.A. No.2724/2017
ORDER (ORAL)
In the present OA, the applicant seeks the following relief(s) :-
"(a) To quash and set aside order F.No.04/06/2017 dated 05.05.2017 Pass by the respondents.
(b) To direct the respondents promote to late husband of the applicant on the post Account Officer (E&AO) w.e.f.14.7.1998 and subsequent grant the full family pension to the applicant w.e.f. (17.3.2004) date of the death of her late husband.
(c) To direct the respondents for re-funds the amount of DCRG Rs.24000/- and amount of ¼ part of pension with 18% delay interest.
(d) Pass further any such order/orders which deems fit and proper in view of Hon‟ble Tribunal. "
2. It is not disputed that this is second round of litigation. In the present OA, the applicant seeks to challenge the Order dated 05.05.2017 passed in pursuance of the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench dated 03.03.2017 in OA No.750/2017-Kamla Devi Vs. UOI and Others whereby the respondents were directed to decide the applicant‟s representation dated 12.08.2015 within a period of three months.
3. It is not disputed that the applicant was promoted on 28.10.1985 as Office Superintendent in the office of respondents. It is also not disputed that an FIR No.376/95 3 O.A. No.2724/2017 u/s 409 IPC had been lodged in the Police Station against late husband of the applicant for misappropriation of money of Rs.3,11,202.80/- for the period between 14.07.94 to 03.04.1995. Hence, the present OA.
4. Per contra, the respondents have contended that the late husband of the applicant misappropriated Govt. Money amounting to Rs.3,11,202.80 on account of sale proceeds of maps from 14.07.1994 to 31.03.1995 in Map Sales office, New Delhi. Accordingly a Board was constituted for preliminary investigation. The Board in their report found the late husband of the applicant responsible for defalcation. He was suspended by the disciplinary authority w.e.f. 04.04.1995. An FIR was also lodged with Police Station, Connaught Place, New Delhi and the Police on 18.08.1995 arrested and sent him to Tihar Jail. The case was under
judicial trial in Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
5. Effect of acquittal in criminal case on departmental inquiry; the question as to what is to be done in the case of acquittal in a criminal case has been answered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in R.P. Kapur V/s Union of India and Anr. AIR 1964 SC 787 (a five Judge bench judgment) as follows:
4O.A. No.2724/2017
"If the trial of the criminal charge results in conviction, disciplinary proceedings are bound to follow against the public servant so convicted. Even in case of acquittal, proceeding may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable. The issue was explained in the following words by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the following words in Ajit Kumar V/s G.M. (P), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2005)7 SSC 76;
Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely differently. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessarily to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused „beyond reasonable doubt‟, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of „preponderance of probability‟. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation.5 O.A. No.2724/2017
The judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in G.M. Tank V/s State of Gujarat (2006) 5 SSC 446 has reaffirmed the principles laid down in R.P. Kapur (Supra). In G.M. Tank case, Court observed that there was not an iota of evidence against the appellant to hold that he was guilty. As the criminal case and the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts and evidence the court set aside the penalty imposed in the departmental inquiry also.
Ratio in the G.M. Tank judgment should not be misconstrued to mean that no departmental proceedings are permissible in all cases of acquittal or that in such cases the penalty already imposed would have to be set aside. What the Hon‟ble Court has held that no departmental inquiry would be permissible when the evidence clearly establishes that no charge against the Government servant may be made out.
3. In accordance with Govt. of India‟s instructions 1 & 2 appearing below Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was not found appropriate to initiate any disciplinary action against the suspended official since he was already in the judicial custody being involved in the case of criminal conduct involving loss of substantial public funds. The official remained on judicial custody for about 23 months. Finally the Metropolitan Magistrate Patiala House Court New Delhi in their judgment dated 13.04.1998 acquitted the late husband of the applicant on some technical grounds and giving him the benefits of doubt. The suspension order of the late husband of the applicant thus revoked and he was reinstated on 22.07.1998. Since the late husband of the applicant was acquittal on technical grounds by giving him benefit of doubt, he cannot be said to have been exonerated by the Court on merit. As such the disciplinary proceedings was initiated for defalcation of Govt. money amounting to Rs.3,11,202.80."
6O.A. No.2724/2017
6. On perusal of the records and hearing of the arguments at length of the learned counsel for the parties, it is found that during his life time till his death i.e. 17.03.2004, the applicant did not prefer any appeal against the impugned order dated 18.12.2002 wherein the following penalty was imposed "9. Now, therefore, after going through the records of the case, taking into account all aspects relevant in the case and the advice tendered by UPSC, the Competent Authority i.e. Hon‟ble MOS (S&T) on behalf of the President of India has decided to impose on Sh. C. K. Ravivanshi, Office Superintendent (Retd.) the penalty of :-
(1) Reduction in his pension by 1/4th (one-fourth) part of pension otherwise admissible to him immediately after the date of retirement on permanent basis ; and (2) Withholding on permanent basis of Rs.24,000/- (Rupees Twenty four Thousant) from DCR Gratuity admissible to him immediately after the date of retirement. "
7. The applicant chose to remain silent. Her representation dated 12.08.2015 was disposed of in compliance of the order dated 03.03.2017 passed in OA No.750/2017 (Kamla Devi Vs. UOI and Others) by this Tribunal. It is not disputed that the applicant, who is late wife of the delinquent employee, is seeking release of full pension and also promotion despite 7 O.A. No.2724/2017 having not challenged the order dated 18.12.2002. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that since he was acquitted by criminal court, the impugned order is not sustainable. It is also contended that the said contention is not dealt with by the competent authority while disposing of the said representation. It is seen that a detailed and speaking order has been passed.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is also noticed that the reply to the legal notice dated 19th April was issued by Surveyor General‟s Office vide letter No.Vig.- 4648/PF (C.K. Ravivanshi) dated 30.08.2016 in continuation of Directorate of Survey (Air) in response to her letter and Legal Notice dated 19.4.2016 addressed to PMO. Further, information to her RTI Application dated „nil‟ regarding revised pension was provided by Office of the Regional Pay & Accounts Officer-III, Jaipur vide letter No.RPAO/SI/JPR/B/Pension/2015-16/1049 dated 03.08.2015. As informed Surveyor General‟s Office is not in receipt of any other RTI Application from the applicant.
9. In a recent judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5930/2022 titled as State of Rajasthan 8 O.A. No.2724/2017 and Ors. Vs. Phool Singh decided on 02.09.2022. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under :-
"14. Therefore, in the present case the acquittal of the respondent is not an honourable acquittal, but an acquittal given due to a "benefit of doubt". Under these circumstances and in view of the position of law as stated above, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 29.01.2014 of the learned Single Judge and the order dated 09.09.2020 of the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench are hereby set aside."
In view of the above facts and circumstances and law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, OA is dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs.
(Manish Garg) Member (J) 'uma'