Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
G. S. Negi vs All India Council For Technical ... on 17 December, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.3601/2009 This the 17th day of December, 2009 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) G. S. Negi, Under Secretary (Finance) now re-designated as Assistant Director, All India council for Technical Education, 104, 2nd Floor, Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092. Applicant ( By Shri R. K. Gupta, Advocate ) Versus 1. All India Council for Technical Education through its Acting Chairman, 7th Floor, Chanderlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-110001. 2. Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chanderlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-110001. 3. Deputy Director (Admn.), All India Council for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chanderlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-110001. 4. Union of India represented through Secretary, Ministry of HRD, Department of Technical Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. Respondents O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
G. S. Negi, presently holding the post of Assistant Director, the applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash and set aside order dated 25.11.2009 issued by Deputy Director (Admn.), All India Council for Technical Education, placing him under suspension under sub-rule (1) of rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, consequent upon registration of FIR No. RC 9(A)/2009-GNR dated 1.9.2009 under section 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC.
2. It may not be necessary to trace the service graph of the applicant as given in the Application. Suffice it may, however, to mention that at the relevant time when the impugned order, as mentioned above, came to be passed the applicant was holding the post of Assistant Director. On recommendation of DPC the applicant was promoted as Under Secretary on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200 (pre-revised) vide office order dated 5.7.2002, and was put on probation for a period of two years. He completed the period of probation and was confirmed vide order dated 31.12.2002. It is the case of the applicant that he always worked in the finance bureau and internal audit in AICTE, and never worked in the approval/technical bureau which used to deal with matters of grant of permission of new technical institutions as well as increase of seats in the existing institutions. By order dated 7.1.2009 the applicant was allotted work in grants-in-aid section, budget and compilation and internal audit section of the finance bureau. In June, 2009 AICTE due to shortage of technical staff, assigned the work of convener to the applicant, even though from 1993 the applicant was always employed in non-technical bureau. It is his case that he had never worked earlier as convener and he had no technical expertise, and the duty of convener was always assigned to technical persons working on the post of Assistant Director, Deputy Director and also Director of AICTE. The function of convener is to give logistic support to the experts and to get the report filed from the experts in proper format, to bring the experts on the site of the institution, to arrange for their lodging, boarding in hotel and to arrange for their air/road travels and to submit their report in the technical bureau of headquarters, and payment of TA&DA to the experts. It is pleaded that the applicant has no role in decision making process. However, on 1.9.2009, an FIR under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered by CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Gandhi Nagar against one G. P. Bhuva, managing trustee, Bhagvad Vidya Pratisthan, Gondal, Gujarat, and the applicant and some other unknown officials and private persons, stating therein that an information had been received from reliable sources alleging that a criminal conspiracy was hatched during the period 2008-2009, by Gopal Popatbhai Bhuva, managing trustee of Bhavgad Vidya Pratisthan, Gondal with G. S. Negi (the applicant), Under Secretary and Convener from AICTE, Delhi and other unknown officials and private persons for getting approval for establishing a new engineering college by the name and style of Bhagvad Gopal Institute of Engineering, Gondal by abuse of official position and cheating. As per regulations of 2006 notified under notification dated 14.9.2006 issued by the Council under AICTE Act, 1987, land admeasuring 10 acres and 1.0 acres is required for establishing engineering institute and management institute respectively in rural areas. Further the institute is also required to submit copies of fixed deposit receipts in the joint names of the institute and regional office of the Council, to the tune of Rs.35 lacs and Rs.15 lacs respectively for engineering and management institutes. For polytechnic institute, similar FDR to the tune of Rs.15 lacs is required. Such FDRs should be for a period of eight years. It was alleged that Gopal P. Bhuva, managing trustee, submitted fake documents, and based on this information a joint surprise check in association with officers of AICTE, CPWD, land revenue and independent witnesses was conducted on 24.8.2009. During the surprise check following facts emerged:
Bhavgad Vidya Pratisthan Trust is registered with the office of Assistant Charity Commissioner, Rajkot vide No. E-8096 dated 7.2.2007 under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. This Trust submitted an application dated 31.12.2008 to Regional Office, AICTE, Bhopal under the signature of Shri Gopalbhai P. Bhuva, Managing Trustee of Bhavgad Vidya Pratisthan for approval of New Degree Engineering Course and Management Course in the name and style of Bhagvad Gopal Institute of Engineering and Kokilaben Bhagwad Gopal Institute of Business Management respectively. In said applications, Trustee furnished the land details that a non irrigated land at Survey No.25/2P1/4P1 admeasuring 17.05 acres, out area of Gondal City Municipality was purchased on 15.2.2007 in name of Bhagvad Vidya Pratisthan through Trustee for Rs.3,30,000/- and was registered vide GDL-I, Sr. No.11254/01/06 dated 15.2.2007 at the office of Sub Registrar Office, Gondal.
Thereafter, letter of intent was issued on 19.3.2009 by AICTE in favour of Bhagvad Vidya Pratisthan for completing the formalities such as submission of joint FDRs and other documents. It was also informed that the expert committee would visit and therefore to keep all the original documents in ready stage. In continuing to this process, two Expert Committees Shri G. S. Negi, Under Secretary & Convener, AICTE, New Delhi along with other members visited the Institutes of Business Management and Bhagvad Gopal Institute of Engineering. They also certified of having verified the registration documents of society, documents related to land and land area, built up, library, laboratory facilities, computer and Director/Principal and Faculty. Letter of approval was issued by AICTE for Bhagvad Gopal Institute of Engineering and Kokilaben Bhagvad Gopal Institute of Business Management on 28.6.2009 and dated 29.6.2009 respectively. A copy of FDR No.722644 dated 28.5.2009 for Rs.15,00,000/- and FDR No.722160 dated 16.5.2009 issued from Bank of Baroda, Gondal, Rajkot issued in the joint name of Trust and Regional Officer, AICTE.
That Shri Gopal P. Bhuva, Managing Trustee has submitted false documents about the land bearing survey No.25/2P1/4P1 admeasuring area 17.05 acres. The sale deed is also fake. Documents submitted for the Business Management Institute by the name of Kokilaben Bhagwad Gopal Institute of Business Management are also fake. Expert Committees, whose convener was Shri G. S. Negi, visited the institute to verify the facilities with the ulterior motive in connivance with Shri Bhuva did not mention that in the said premises another Polytechnic was already functioning. Further in criminal conspiracy they did not verify the land documents submitted by Shri Gopal Popatbhai Bhuva, Managing Trustee of Bhagvad Vidya Pratisthan, Gondal. Thus due to the overt acts of omission and commission on the part of Shri G. S. Negi approval for the Engineering and Management Institute was issued by AICTE.
The above facts prima facie disclosed the commission of an offence by the following: (1) Gopal Popatbhai Bhuva, Managing Trustee, Bhagvad Vidya Pratisthan, Gondal; (2) Shri G. S. Negi, Under Secretary and Convener from AICTE, Delhi; (3) Bhagvad Vidya Pratisthan, Gondal; (4) Other unknown officials & private persons, which is punishable U/s 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act 1988. On 16.9.2009 CBI conducted search at the house of the applicant but no incriminating articles, it is the case of the applicant, were found. CBI searched the office room of the applicant as well in his absence and is said to have recovered some money in open place accessible to everybody, and nothing was found in his locked almirah and one table which were opened by making duplicate keys and breaking the locks. The applicant, as per instructions, appeared before CBI at Gandhi Nagar on 12.10.2009 and is said to have answered all the questions put to him by the investigating officer. Without issuing any show cause notice, on 25.11.2009 the Deputy Director (Administration) AICTE issued the order suspending the applicant.
3. Shri R. K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the applicant, in support of the Application has urged that the FIR was lodged on 1.9.2009 at Gandhi Nagar, whereas the order of suspension was issued on 25.11.2009 after lapse of more than two months, and further that once, there was no possibility of influencing the witnesses and interference in the investigation as the alleged place of incident is at Gondal, Gujarat, whereas the office of the applicant is situated at New Delhi, there was no occasion for the respondents to place him under suspension. The learned counsel has also urged, on variety of grounds that the name of the applicant has been wrongly mentioned in the FIR, as he had no role whatsoever to play in the entire episode leading to registration of the said FIR.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and with his assistance examined the records of the case. As per provisions contained in rule 10(1)(b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, can place a government servant under suspension, where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Admittedly, a criminal case against the applicant and others has been registered, which is under investigation. The applicant could be put under suspension immediately on registration of the case, but the mere fact that the order of suspension has come to be passed after two months would be no ground to set aside the same. Further, the fact that the applicant is posted at Delhi, whereas the FIR has been registered in Gujarat, too would not provide any ground to the applicant in seeking to set aside the impugned order. Whether an accused involved in a criminal case would be in a position to influence the witnesses and interfere with investigation, has to be taken into consideration by the concerned authorities. Further, the very fact that the accused is unable to influence the witnesses and interfere with the investigations, or may not do so, may be a ground that may be considered by the disciplinary authority for continuation of suspension of the employee involved in criminal case. The same cannot be a ground to set aside the order of suspension. Insofar as, the contention of the learned counsel that the applicant is innocent and has been implicated in the FIR is concerned, it may not be for this Tribunal to go into all these issues. A bare reading of the FIR, however, does disclose commission of an offence, but in case, it may be the case of the applicant, as indeed it is, that there are grounds to hold that the FIR does not disclose any offence and the applicant instead of being prosecuted is being persecuted, surely, he has to knock at some other doors.
5. Finding no merits in this Application, we dismiss the same in limine.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/