Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Prakash vs Secretary To Government Of India on 19 June, 2012
1 O.A. No. 353/2012 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI Dated this Tuesday the 19th day of June, 2012 CORAM:- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. BASHEER, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE SHRI R.BANDYOPADHYAY, MEMBER (A) O.A.353 of 2012 Prakash S/o Nikanthrao Chandrayan, Head Surveyor, Central Groundwater Board, Central Region, R/o Flat No.203, Mehar Apartments, Naik Layout, Jaitala Road, Subhash Nagar, Nagpur 440 022. (Applicant in person) Versus Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110001. The Chairman, Central Groundwater Board, N.H.IV, Bhujal Bhavan, Faridabad Haryana 121 001. Regional Director, Central Groundwater Board, Central Region, New Secretariat Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur Pin 440 001. The Inquiry Officer Shri Ashis Chakraborty, Regional Director, Central Groundwater Board, Rajiv Gandhi National Groundwater Training & Research Institute, Behind Pujari Park, Tagore Nagar, Raipur 492 001 (Chattisgarh). -Respondents O R D E R (Oral) Per: Justice A.K.Basheer, Member (J)
Applicant is stated to be working as Head Surveyor in the Central Ground Water Board (for short 'the Board') at Nagpur. He has filed this Original 2 O.A. No. 353/2012 Application with a prayer to quash and set aside the charge sheet issued to him in April, 2009, alleging that he had embezzled/mis-appropriated a sum of Rs.5,65,305/-belonging to the Staff Credit Cooperative Society of the Board. It appears that the applicant was working as Secretary of the said Society at the relevant point of time. Any how, we do not deem it necessary to refer to the Articles of Charge or the Statement of Imputations relating to the charge at this stage in view of the Order that we propose to pass.
2. It is on record that the applicant has already participated in the enquiry proceedings. It is also on record that the Enquiry officer has already submitted the Enquiry Report and the Disciplinary Authority is seizion of the matter. It is at this stage the applicant has filed this Original Application praying for quashing not only the charge sheet but the enquiry report as well.
3. The primary contention of the applicant appears to be that the authority which has issued the charge sheet has no competence or jurisdiction to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against him in-as-much as the Society in question falls within the ambit of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. He has also raised some other contentions as well in the Original Application in support of his case. In our view it is not necessary to refer to or deal with these contentions at this stage.
4. As has been noticed already, the charge 3 O.A. No. 353/2012 sheet was issued way back in April, 2009. Applicant had not chosen to challenge the charge sheet at that point of time. Still further, the enquiry was initiated some time in 2010. Even at this stage the applicant did not choose to challenge the disciplinary proceedings. He has approached this Tribunal at a stage when the Enquiry Officer has already submitted the Enquiry Report before the disciplinary authority.
5. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to entertain this Original Application at this stage. We hasten to add that we have not considered the merit or demerit of any of the contentions raised by the applicant.
6. The Original Application is dismissed in limine.
(R.Bandyopadhyay) (Justice A.K.Basheer) Member (A) Member (J) mf