Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dhirendra Singh Rawat vs M/O Communications on 18 February, 2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA 4673/2015
Reserved on 2.01.2019
Pronounced on 18.02.2019
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J)
Dhirendra Singh Rawat,
Aged 51 years,
S/o Sh.(Late) G.S.Rawat,
Working as Section Officer in the
Department of Electronics and
Information Technology,
r/o H.No. 948, Block-17, Lodhi Colony,
New Delhi-3 ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its' Secretary,
Ministry of Communications & Information
Technology, Govt. of India,
Electronics Niketan, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Department of Electronics & Information
Technology, Electronics Niketan,
6 CGO Complex, New Delhi.
3. The Director (Administration),
Department of Electronics & Information
Technology, Electronics Niketan,
6 CGO Complex, New Delhi.
4. Sh. Devender Pal Chawla,
Retired Section Officer,
Department of Electronics & Information
Technology, Electronics Niketan,
6 CGO Complex, New Delhi.
5. Sh. T.P.Mohan,
Retired Section Officer,
Department of Electronics & Information
Technology, Electronics Niketan,
6 CGO Complex, New Delhi. ... Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Satish Kumar for official respondents and
Mr.S.K.Gupta for pvt. respondents)
2 OA 4673/2015
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J):
We have heard Mr. Yogesh Sharma, counsel for applicants and Mr. Satish Kumar and Mr.S.K.Gupta, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by the parties.
2. In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i). That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect that the decision taken by the respondent no. 1 to 3 on file for not taking final decision on the show cause notice issued to the selected candidates in LDCE 2010 for the post of section officer, for their reversion, as their promotions have been illegal and by manipulation of marks is illegal, arbitrary and against the Govt. of India instructions on the subject and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to revert the respondent no. 4 and 5 from the post of Section Officer and consider the applicant for his promotion to the post of Section Officer at the place of private respondents being next eligible person in the panel from the same date of promotion of private respondents, with all the consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant."
3. The relevant facts of the case are that on the basis of some irregularity in the conduct of the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination-2010(LDCE-2010) for three posts of Section Officer which was conducted between 9.08.2010 to 13.08.2010 which the applicant procured as a reply to his RTI application, he has prayed for the above stated relief.
4. The respondents in their counter affidavit stated that when the said irregularity came to their notice, they have taken action. The 2 3 OA 4673/2015 action taken by the respondents is stated in the counter affidavit which is extracted below:
"1. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that in accordance with the Regulation of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) and Recruitment Rules for the post of Section Officer Notified vide GSR 81 (E) dated 09.02.2001 and GSR 32(E) dated 14.01.2010 respectively, the Ministry conducts Departmental Examination for promotion to the post of Section Officer against the 50% of vacancies earmarked to be filled through Limited Departmental Examination. The remaining 50% of vacancies are filled through seniority promotion.
2. The LDCE-2010 for the post of Section Officer was conducted during 9th-13th August, 2010 for three posts and three candidates were selected and appointed as Section Officer including Respondent No. 4 & 5. The Petitioner was placed at merit no. 6(subsequently placed at merit No. 5) in the said Examination.
3. The Petitioner after declaration of the result inspected the Answer Sheets of the candidates under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and thereafter, submitted two complaints dated 18.04.2011 and 14.10.2011 addressed to Chief Vigilance Officer and Minister of Communications & Information Technology and prayed for (i) to take action against Shri R.K.Manchanda (now retired) the then Chief Controller of Examination for his involvement in corrupt practices and tampering with the records; (ii) to cancel the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, 2010 alternatively, reversion of both candidates who became Section Officer by adopting corrupt/unfair practices and promotion of next two candidates as per merit list of LDCE- 2010.
4. Subsequently, on the direction of the then Chief Vigilance Officer, Vigilance Unit, MeitY, a fact finding Inquiry was conducted by the then Director (Personnel) and each point of allegation made by the Applicant was examined scrupulously and meticulously. ( A copy of the fact finding report is annexed hereto as Annexure R-1). The inquiry officer concluded its report stating that "it is perhaps more out of frustration than facts that Shri Rawat (Petitioner) had lodged this complaint. He should have done a more close and critical analysis of records before arriving at such a conclusion as mentioned in his complaint. His frivolous complaint has thus led to wastage of precious time of administration. Shri R.K.Manchnda, the then Joint Director (Pers.) and Chief Controller of Examination did resort to an informal procedure while getting the total marks corrected in the Question Paper on "Noting Drafting & Precis Writing", by the evaluator for these 2 candidates. It is, 3 4 OA 4673/2015 however, clear in view of all the documentary evidence and written statements of the MeitY officials associated with the examination process that there has been no malafide observed on the part of Shri R.K.Manchanda as alleged by Shri D.S. Rawat in his complaint."
5. The fact finding inquiry report was further examined in the Vigilance Unit of this Ministry and based on the analysis, it had been arrived that there are circumstantial evidences for irregularities in the conduct of the examination but the same have not been proved conclusively. The actual benefit that would have accrued on account of the unfair practice alleged to have been adopted is also not obvious. The prime irregularity has been conducted by Shri R.K.Manchanda, Controller of Examination and Director (Rtd.) and he is responsible for (i) change of examiner for paper-IV without approval of Competent Authority and (ii) Following informal process of getting the marks awarded by examiner corrected without bringing the same to the attention of the Competent Authority.
6. However, in the interest of transparency and probity, it was decided with the approval of Hon'ble Minister for Communication & IT to (i) cancel the entire process of examination and conduct the selection process again and
(ii) Initiation of appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the main accused, Shri R.K.Manchanda, Jt. Director.
7. In compliance to above decision, an order dated 26.04.2012 was issued which states as under:-
"due to irregularities observed in the conduct of the process of the LDCE for the post of Section Officer- 2010, the Competent Authority has decided to cancel the entire process of the said examination and conduct the selection process again."
Consequently, the above names officers (Respondent Nos.4 & 5), who were promoted on the basis of result of the said examination, stood reverted to the substantive posts held by them immediately prior to the said examination bestowed to them due to this examination. Besides, Shri R.K.Manchanda was also served chargesheet and disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him. The inquiry of the case is still going on.
8. Aggrieved by above discussion, all these candidates including Respondent No. 4 & 5, who were promoted as Section Officer on the basis of the said LDCE and later reverted, approached Hon'ble CAT and prayed for quashing and setting aside the decision dated 11.01.2012 together with the Order dated 26.04.2012 of the Ministry. Hon'ble CAT observed that the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 could not 4 5 OA 4673/2015 have been reverted from the post of Section Officer without following the principles of natural justice and minimum they could do was to give them a show cause notice before reverting them to the lower post. A copy of the Hon'ble CAT's Order dated 22.11.2014 is annexed hereto as Annexure -7 of the Petition. The concluding para of the Hon'ble CAT's Order dated 20.11.2014 in the said matter is as under:
"Impugned Order dated 26.04.2012 passed in both cases is quashed. It goes without saying that the respondent would be at liberty to pass fresh order after giving the show cause notice to the applicants. The applicant would be resorted the posts held by them on their promotion as a result of the aforementioned selection."
9. In order to comply with the above Order, the officers were given an opportunity to explain within 15 days from the date of issuance of Memorandum dated 27.03.2015 as to why the LDCE-2010 should not be cancelled and as a result why they should not be reverted to the substantive post held by them prior to the promotion of Section Officer. Simultaneously, all the above officers were also reinstated to the post of Section Officer, however, their continuance to the post of SO was subjected to the outcome of the decision to be taken by the Competent Authority on the reply submitted by the above officers in response to Show Cause Notice issued to each one of them (Annexure A/2 of OA). Besides, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against Shri R.K.Manchanda. The inquiry is yet to be concluded.
10. All the three officers submitted their reply in response to the Memorandum dated 27.03.2015 served to them. They stated that no specific allegation has been levelled against them and none of the allegations levelled by the complainant in his representation with regard to conduct of Departmental examination has been proved conclusively on the basis of the documents on records and statement of witness, vigilance Unit's recommendations and decision of the then Secretary, MeitY being the Appointing Authority and as Hon'ble CAT directed to resort to the posts held on their promotion as a result of the aforementioned selection, they have the legitimate right to hold the post of Section Officer for which they had participated as a candidate and qualified the examination.
11. While examining the reply /explanation given by all three officers against the Show Cause Notice served to them, it was felt that the outcome of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings against Shri R.K.Manchanda has a linkage with the decision to be taken on the aforesaid reply/explanation submitted by each of them. Hence, it was decided to link final outcome on the reply submitted 5 6 OA 4673/2015 by each against Show Cause Memorandum with the ongoing disciplinary case against Shri Manchanda. In the other words, it has been decided to take a decision on the reply submitted by all the three officers including R4 & R5 against aforesaid Show Cause Memorandum, after the outcome of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings against Shri Manchanda."
One of the reliefs claimed in this OA is that the applicant is seeking relief of his promotion to the post of Section Officer being next eligible candidate. But, however, in view of the action taken by the respondents extracted above and in view of the pendency of the OAs stated in para 8 to 11 of the above extracted portion of the counter affidavit, the relief of directing the respondents to promote the applicant cannot be granted.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(S.N.Terdal) ( Nita Chowdhury)
Member (J) Member (A)
'sk'
.....
6