Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
K Dhanalakshmi vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 12 March, 2025
1
OA No. 3533/2019
Item No.26 /C-1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 3533/2019
Order reserved on: 19.02.2025.
Order pronounced on: 12.03.2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
K. Dhanalakshmi, (Group A)
Aged about 46 Years
D/o Late T. Kapani Gowda,
R/o No. 12 E, Cross, 3rd Main Road,
Byatarayanapura New Extension,
Mysore Road,
Bangalore-560026
Presently Working as
Additional Resident Commissioner
Govt. of U.P.,
New Delhi -110021 ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Shivanshu Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Department of Personnel and Training
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Under Secretary to the Government of India,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Government of India, North Block, New Delhi.
... Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar with Ms. Nidhi Sharma)
2
OA No. 3533/2019
Item No.26 /C-1
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By way of the present OA filed under section 19 of the AT Act, 1985, as per para 8 of the OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"(a). For quashing the Memorandum No. F No. 106/03/2018-AVD 1/C dated 14.06.2019 issued by the Respondent No. 2 issued with the approval of the Respondent no. 1 being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore is arbitrary; and
(b) direct the respondents not to further harass the applicant"
FACTS IN BRIEF:
2. The brief facts of this case are that the applicant is an Indian Administrative Service Officer of Uttar Pradesh cadre and belongs to 2000 batch. She hails from Bangalore and states that her grandparents were having large tracts of agricultural land and derived substantial income from business and rental from houses and fair price shops situated in Urban areas of Bangalore.
Independently, the applicant's late father had hereditary properties in various parts of Bangalore and surrounding areas, including more than 15 acres of agricultural land on Mysore Road, Bangalore. He also had the business of transport and real estate and was getting rental incomes from immovable properties for decades.
3. She states that the State of Uttar Pradesh by its G.O. dated 15.6.1989 imposed a condition in terms of Section 6 of the Delhi 3 OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1 Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act. 1946 requiring the State's consent for investigating an officer under the control of the State Government. The Central Government vide its G.O. dated 23.8.1990 accepted the above condition with regard to investigating an officer under the control of the State Government.
4. The applicant also states that she married her colleague of same batch, namely Shri Sorabh Babu, who is an IAS officer of Uttar Pradesh Cadre, and also belongs to Uttar Pradesh and therefore posterior to the marriage, the applicant was also allocated to U.P Cadre. The couple was blessed with two daughters in the year 2006 and 2007. However, the marriage of the applicant with her husband was dissolved by a decree of divorce by the Learned Family Court, Kanpur, U.P. Just after fifteen days of their dissolution of marriage and without waiting for expiration of time to appeal, Sh. Sorabh Babu, IAS remarried one Ms. Smita Saxena, a divorcee, and daughter of Sh. B.B. Saxena, IAS, the then Joint Secretary in Government of India, who was having many friends and relatives in the Government of India and the CBI. The marriage took place at the residence of District Magistrate, Jalaun, U.P. where Sh. Sorabh Babu himself was the District Magistrate (D.M.) and his subordinate Officer, ADM was the Marriage Officer.
4OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1
5. The applicant submits that a vigilance clearance was given to her by the Government of U.P. for going on Central Deputation. A Review Petition against the order of dissolution of marriage was filed by the applicant. The said Review Petition was dismissed by the Learned Family Court. It is submitted that after the dismissal of the Review Petition the applicant was totally disturbed and traumatized for few months. When the applicant reasoned herself and was planning to file an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, a roadblock was created by implicating her in a false CBI case. The CBI registered an F.I.R. vide F.I.R No. 2172011A0012 against the applicant and her mother U/S.109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and u/Ss.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged criminal misconduct of possessing disproportionate assets to the tune of over Rs. 3.15 crores for the check period 2002-2011. This was done by selectively adding the assets and expenditure of the applicant's mother but not her income. Applicant states that even in ACRs, there is a Column in Form 1, in which Clause No.14 specifically asks for the date of filing the property return for the year ending December, which is checked and signed by the Department. Hence, the filing of the IPR and checking and verification by the Department (Appointment Department) is provided for. The Copies of the IPRs of the applicant from 2004 to 2012 were furnished by DOPT when requested for the same by the applicant which clearly states that 5 OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1 all the properties either acquired by the applicant or her minor children were duly reported by filing IPRs.
6. The applicant further submits that she filed CRL M.C. No.5389 of 2014 before this Hon'ble Court of Delhi seeking quashing of the said F.I.R No. 2172011A0012 being vitiated by mala fides, wrongly including the assets of third parties, ignoring the income and expenditure of her husband Mr. Sorabh Babu throughout the check period of 10 years without seeking even an explanation, as required by law prior to the registration of the FIR. The Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 20.04.2015 in CRL M.C. No.5389 of 2014 was pleased to quash the said F.I.R No. 2172011A0012 against the applicant.
7. The applicant contends that she was promoted to the Super Time Scale, Pay Band-4, Rs.37,400-67,000, Grade Pay Rs.10,000/- and as a result of this promotion, was posted as Secretary to the Government of U.P. The Criminal Appeal No. 994 of 2016 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6744/2015 filed by the CBI against the judgment dated 20.04.2015 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 5389/2014 was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. Vide order dated 17.02.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow in Petition No.3510 of 2017 filed by the applicant had inter alia directed the State Government of U.P. to consider applicant's matter for 6 OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1 empanelment/appointment to the post of Joint Secretary to the Government of India. Subsequently, the Hon'ble High Court reviewed/modified the order dated 17.02.2017 to the effect that no consequential action shall be taken on the basis of First Information Report referred to in the order dated 17.02.2017, being in violation of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Aggrieved by the said two orders dated 17.2.2017 and 22.2.2017, two separate Special Leave Petitions were filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation and Union of India, through Secretary, DOPT, Ministry of Public Grievances & Pensions which were registered as SLP (CRL) Diary No.19838 of 2018 and SLP(CRL) Diary No.18173/2018 respectively. In the said SLP (CRL) and SLP(CRL) Diary No.18173/2018 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been pleased to pass an order that:
"Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners prays for withdrawal of the special leave petitions with liberty to approach the High Court. Without commenting on the said prayer, the special Leave Petitions stand dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for."
9. In view of the undertaking given before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the DOPT and the CBI filed separate Review Petitions along with an application for interim relief for stay of the aforesaid order dated 22.2.2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow which is presently pending.
10. Applicant states that the CBI took sanction from Government of India and the CBI prepared the Charge Sheet No.7 of 2019 making ex-husband of the applicant, Mr. Sorabh Babu, 7 OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1 IAS as one of the witnesses as prosecution witness no. 32 in the Charge Sheet. The said Charge Sheet was filed by the CBI before the Court of Special Judge, PC ACT/ CBI-10, Rouse Revenue, New Delhi. The Learned Court took cognizance of the said Charge Sheet and issued summon to the applicant directing her to appear before the Court on 30.9.2019. The applicant filed Crl. Misc. (Main) Petition No.4594 of 2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The said Petition was listed for hearing when the Hon'ble High Court had been pleased to issue notice in main petition as well as stay application but did not stay the further criminal proceedings before the learned CBI Court, Delhi. The Petitioner filed Special Leave Petition No. 8663 -8664 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the said SLP declining to interfere with the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, and observing that the quashing petition was also pending before the High Court, wherein interim stay could be sought. The Petitioner received the impugned Memorandum dated 14.06.2019 along with an open letter dated 5.11.2019. The Hon'ble High Court vide judgement dated 11.01.2023 set aside the order of Ld. Special Judge and discharged the applicant in FIR No. RC 2172011A0012.
11. On admission of the matter, notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter affidavit on 8 OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1 16.07.2021, to which the applicant has chosen not to file her rejoinder despite opportunities having been granted to her. CASE OF RESPONDENTS:
12. In rebuttal to the claim of the applicant, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit stating that the case relates to acquiring of disproportionate assets by the applicant who is an IAS officer, (UP:2000) presently working as Additional Resident Commissioner at New Delhi. It is stated that the documents submitted by CBI while seeking Sanction for Prosecution against her revealed that she was in possession of assets which were disproportionate to her known sources of income for which she could not satisfactorily explain. It is stated that during the period 12.09.2000 to 23.11.2011, she acquired immovable property without the previous knowledge of the Government, and she did not file her IPR returns in time and misled the Government by stating that she filed the same in time. However, date of filing of IPRs and purportedly furnishing of the same by her on 7.4.2002, 11.3.2005, 5.10.2007, 14.5.2010 and 8.10.2010 were received by the Competent Authority only on 12.12.2011 and 13.12.2011. It is alleged that by the above acts of commission and omission, she failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, and thus contravened the provisions of Rule 16 (1), 16(2), 16 (3) of AIS 9 OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1 (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and rendered herself liable for disciplinary proceedings under Rule 8 of the AIS (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. Rule 16(2) of AIS (Conduct) Rules, 1968 provides that every member of the Service shall submit an annual return in such form as may be prescribed by the government in this regard, giving full particulars regarding the immovable property inherited by him or owned or acquired by him or held by him on lease or mortgage, either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family or in the name of any other person.
13. Government of India's decisions under Rule 16 of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 states:
"24. State Governments should ensure that every Mos should furnish their annual property returns in respect of every calendar year, by the 31st January of the next year: In accordance with the provisions of Rules 16(2) of the AIS (Conduct) Rules, 1968, every member of the service is required to submit an annual return giving full particulars regarding the immovable property inherited by him or owned or acquired by him or held by him on lease or mortgage, either in his own name or in any person of family. It has been prescribed in Government of India's instruction Nos. 1 & 2 below Rule 16 ibid that the return of immovable property in form I shall be submitted by the members of the service on their first appointment to the service within a month of his appointment and subsequently in the month of January every year. The need for obtaining these returns regularly and making careful scrutiny of the same has also been reiterated from time to time.
2. It has however, been noticed that in many cases these returns are not being submitted on time. All State Governments etc. are therefore requested to ensure that the returns of immovable property are submitted by all members of the service under their control, in respect of every calendar year, by the 31st January of the next year. It may also be impressed upon them that failure on the part of the members of the Service to comply with the requirements of the aforesaid rules constitutes good and sufficient reason for institution of disciplinary proceedings against them. [letter No. 11017/74/93- AIS(III) dated 4.1.94.]
25. All MoS should scrupulously follow the provisions of this rule while submitting the property returns lapses to do so would attract action under AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969. I am 10 OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1 directed to refer to the provisions contained in sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 Rules in regard to submission of immovable/movable and valuable property returns to be filed by the members of the All India Services and to state a review of the application of the said provisions has revealed certain short-falls, namely:
a. While filling the annual immovable property returns, in some cases, officers had not initially furnished information of acquisition of property in the years when they were due but the return subsequently filed contained information of acquisition/disposal that had not been initially given. b. There have been cases where the returns have not been filled by officers in respect of the years when no property was acquired /disposed.
c. There have been cases where property returns have not been filed even though the transactions have been taken place. d. Cases where property transactions have been duly reported to the administrative authorities and the relevant information recorded or the necessary permission obtained and the sources of funding such property fully explained but the annual property returns were not filled.
e. Case where the intimation or permission required were not given to or asked for from the administrative authorities concerned and where the intimation has been given but full details of the sources of acquisition or the income from disposal have not been fully explained and the annual immovable property statements were not submitted.
2. After careful consideration of all the aspects involved in dealing with the above kinds of cases, the Government of India is of the considered view that the State Governments/Union Territories Administration should scrupulously follow the provisions contained in the All India Services (Conduct) Rules and orders issued there under in order to avoid instances of such cases, by bringing relevant portions thereof to the notice of the members of the All India Services.
3. Disciplinary action should invariably by taken against the officers concerned under the A.I.S. (D&A) Rules, 1969 in case of lapse. However, in the case of lapses where the authorities are of the view that the lapses are minor and of technical in nature, a lenient view can be taken depending upon the circumstances of the case. [Letter No. 11017/33/92-AIS(III) dated 7.7.92]".
14. The respondents further state that in accordance with the provisions of Rules 16(2) of the AIS (Conduct) Rules, 1968, every member of the service is required to submit an annual return giving full particulars regarding the immovable property inherited 11 OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1 by him or owned or acquired by him or held by him on lease or mortgage, either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family or in the name of any other person. In terms of the instructions issued vide letters Nos. (i) 11017/74/93-AIS (III) dated 4.1.1994 and (ii) 11017/33/92-AIS (III) dated 7.7.1992 under Rules 16(2) of the AIS (Conduct) Rules, 1968, failure on the part of the members of the Service to comply with the requirements of the aforesaid provisions constitutes good and sufficient reason for institution of disciplinary proceedings against them. The documents submitted by CBI seeking Sanction for Prosecution against the applicant revealed that she was in possession of assets which were disproportionate to her known sources of income which she could not satisfactorily explain. The matter was referred to Central Vigilance Commission seeking its first stage advice for initiation of departmental proceedings against her. The Central Vigilance Commission vide OM No.014/EDN/076-389296 dated 31.07.2018 examined the matter and the Commission was in agreement with Department of Personnel & Training and advised initiation of Major penalty proceedings against the applicant. The disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial and therefore, the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and granting Sanction for Prosecution and initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings are two independent matters. If the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that the 12 OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1 same facts require prosecution as well as disciplinary action, disciplinary action can also be initiated against her, and that on reasonable and sufficient grounds, the matter was placed before the Disciplinary Authority for seeking orders for initiation of major penalty proceedings against the applicant. The approval of the Disciplinary Authority was conveyed vide PMO ID No.600/58/C/11/2019-ES.2 dated 07.06.2019, on the proposal of Department of Personnel & Training for initiation of major penalty proceedings against the applicant, as per the draft charge sheet along with Articles of Charge and Statement of Imputations. The Department of Personnel & Training (DOP&T) issued charge memorandum dated 14th June, 2019 for initiation of major penalty proceedings in disproportionate assets case against the applicant. Rule 8(6) of the All India Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1969 states as under:
"8(6) (a) On receipt of the written statement of defence the disciplinary authority may appoint, under sub-rule (2), an inquiring authority for the purpose of inquiring into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted and where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the member of the Service in his written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority shall record its finding on each charge and shall act in the manner laid down in rule 9.
(b) If no written statement of defence is submitted by the member of the Service, the disciplinary authority may, if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint under sub-rule (2), an inquiring authority for the purpose.
(c) Where the disciplinary authority appoints an inquiring authority for holding an inquiry into such charge it may by an order, appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as the "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge."13 OA No. 3533/2019
Item No.26 /C-1
15. It is further stated that in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8(6) of the All India Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1969, the applicant was given an opportunity by the Disciplinary Authority to submit her Written Statement of Defence. However, instead of submitting her Written Statement of Defence, she chose to file the present Original Application before this Tribunal. Rule 8(2) of the All India Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1969, inter alia, states that whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a member of the Service, it may appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act 1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof. After examination of Written Statement of Defence by the delinquent, if the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against the delinquent, it may appoint an Inquiry Authority to inquire into the truth in accordance with provisions of Rule 8(2) of the All India Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1969. It is stated that the applicant is trying to completely avoid the Disciplinary Proceedings on technical grounds by deliberately raising irrelevant issues. It is further stated that during the check period 12.09.2000 to 23.11.2011, the applicant acquired disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.73,82,657.49/- which she could not satisfactorily 14 OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1 account for in her name as well as in the names of her mother and two minor daughters, which are 60.39% over and above her known sources of income.
16. The applicant has not filed rejoinder, but in support of her claim has filed an additional document enclosing therewith copy of order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CRL.M.C. 1049/2022 & CRL M.As. 4529/2022, 5647/2022, wherein, the order of Learned Special Judge has been set aside and the applicant has been discharged in FIR No. RC 20172011A0012.
17. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material placed on record including the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
ANALYSIS:
18. Admittedly, the applicant is an Indian Administrative Service of 2000 batch of Uttar Pradesh Cadre. An F.I.R. No. 2172011AOO12 was registered against her and her mother under Section 109 of IPC 1960 and under Section 13(2) R/W Section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged Criminal Misconduct of possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 3.15 Cr. for the check period 2002- 2011. After protracted litigation, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its judgment dated 11.1.2023 in Crl. M.C. 1049/2022 set aside the order of Learned 15 OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1 Special Judge and the applicant was discharged in FIR RC 2172011AOO12. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the above- mentioned judgment held as under:
"84. It is a settled law that the charges can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the Petitioner, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that Petitioner committed the particular offence. From the infirmities laid detailed above, it is can be said that once those infirmities are removed it will severely affect DA. In such case, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.
85. In my opinion, the Special Court fails to bring home the guilt of the Petitioner especially because the order of Special Judge suffers from the aforesaid infirmities. The contradictions make it plausible that the case "may be true" but is surely not definitely true.
86. In the present case, the order of the special judge is against material record, because of which the special judge has reached to a conclusion which is inherently improbable. Although this Court cannot examine the correctness of the allegations in a chargesheet, this case falls in the category of cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are inherently improbable and no prudent person can reach such a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Petitioner as the material adduced do not disclose offences.
87. Moreover, the Vigilance Clearance Report dated 08.11.2010 given by the Government of U.P. which is stated to prove that the petitioner till that day was having an impeccable antecedent also fortifies my observations that there are no reasons to prosecute the petitioner.
88. It is also to be noted that the chargesheet has been filed after more than 7 years of filing of the FIR. In Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of T.N., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1732 "26. While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint.
27. While this court does not expect a full-blown investigation at the stage of a criminal complaint, however, in such cases where the accused has been subjected to the anxiety of a potential initiation of criminal proceedings for such a length of time, it is only reasonable for the court to expect bare- minimum evidence from the Investigating Authorities.
28. At the cost of repetition, we again state that the purpose of filing a complaint and initiating criminal proceedings must exist solely to meet the ends of justice, and the law must not be used as a tool to harass the accused. The law, is meant to exist as a shield to protect the innocent, rather than it being used as a sword to threaten them."
89. Hence, it is clear that in these circumstances the court cannot be helpless spectator and leave the of trial. The petitioner will also have to face the trauma of trial despite having prima facie explained the sources of her income and expenditures. To allow the same will be misuse of judicial process.
16OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1
90. The court also cannot ignore that there are sufficient grounds which favor the innocence of the petitioner rather than the guilt. If there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner, then why should she face the trial, which will go on for years together. It would be, thus, in the interest of justice and necessary to achieve the object of the law that the petitioner is saved from unnecessary prosecution.
91. Therefore, in the present case, everything cannot be left for trial. In this view of the matter, the order of the Ld. Special judge is set aside and the petitioner is discharged in FIR No. RC 2172011A0012."
19. The Central Bureau of Investigation filed Special Leave Petition Crl. No.10976/2023 arising out of final judgment and order dated 11.01.2023 in CRL. M.C. No. 1049/2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi. However, vide order dated 04.10.2024 Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
20. In view of above mentioned judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the applicant contends that disciplinary action initiated against her on 14.11.2019 for violation of Rule 18 of All India Service Conduct Rules 1968 vide memorandum of charge is on similar charges in which she has been acquitted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgement (supra) and the initiation of disciplinary action so late, i.e., almost eight years from the date of receipt of IPRs by the competent authority and for almost 18 years from the date of reported misconduct by the applicant (the alleged misconduct is reported for the period from 12.09.2000 to 23.11.2011) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Therefore, she contends that the memorandum of charges dated 14.06.2019 issued by the respondents needs to be quashed. For 17 OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1 facility of reference, charges contained in the above mentioned memorandum are extracted as follows: -
"Article of Charge-l Smt. K. Dhanalakshmi, IAS (UP:2000) while posted and functioning as the then Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment during the period from 12.09.2000 to 23.11.2011 failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant in, as much as, That Smt K. Dhanalakshmi has been found to have acquired assets in her name, in the name of her family members to the tune of Rs. 1,52,37,536.19 which are disproportionate to her known sources of income.
That during the check period ie 12.09.2000 to 23.11.2011 the assets, income, expenditure and disproportionate assets of Smt. K. Dhanalakshmi and her family members have been calculated in the following manner.
Particulars Amount
1. Assets at the beginning of the check period. 2,19,748.00
(St. A)
2. Total assets acquired during the check 1,54,57,284.19
period (St.B)
3. Assets at the end of the check period (A-B) 1,52,37,536.19
4. Income during the check period (St.C) 1,2223990.85
5. Expenditure during the check period (St.D) 43,69,112.15
6. Disproportionate assets (A-B)-(C-D) 73,82,657.49
7. DA percentage 60.39%
By the above acts of commission and omission, the said Smt. K. Dhanalakshmi has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and action in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and has thus contravened the provisions of Rule 3 (1), 3(2), 3 (3)(i) of AIS (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and has rendered herself liable for disciplinary proceedings under Rule 8 of the AIS (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.
Article of Charge-ll That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Smt. K. Dhanalakshmi, has acquired the immovable property without the prior permission of the Government as required by Conduct Rules. Smt. K. Dhanalakshmi, IAS has not filed her IPR returns in time and has misled the govt by stating that she has filed the same in time. However, date of filing of IPRs and purportedly furnishing of the same by Smt. K Dhanalakshmi on 7.4.2002, 11.3.2005, 5.10.2007. 14.5.2010 and 8.10.2010 have been received by the Competent Authority only on 12.12.2011 and 13.12.2011.18 OA No. 3533/2019
Item No.26 /C-1 By the above acts of commission and omission, the said Smt. K. Dhanalakshmi has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and action in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and has thus contravened the provisions of Rule 16 (1), 16(2), 16 (3) of AIS(Conduct) Rules, 1968 and has rendered herself liable for disciplinary proceedings under Rule 8 of the AIS (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969."
21. During the course of hearing in the matter, learned counsel for the respondents categorically admitted that in view of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. M.C. 1049/2022 (supra), Article-I of charge does not survive and the remaining aspect of this disciplinary proceedings as imputed in Article-II of the charge only remains. He further states that burden of proof required in criminal case vis-à-vis departmental proceedings are different, in departmental proceedings, the principle of preponderance of probability is the cannon, hence the contentions of the applicant is not apt that because of setting aside the order of Ld. Special judge and discharging the petitioner in FIR No. RC 2172011A0012, the memorandum of charge cannot be dropped, is not sustainable.
22. We are conscious and well aware of the fact that the disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial and therefore, the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
23. The above position leads us to consider applicant's challenge to the second Article of charge concerning not filing her IPR return in time and thus violating the provisions of Rule 16(1), 19 OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1 16 (2) and 16(3) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. The precise article of charge-II is mentioned supra.
24. However, before going into the merits of the case, we reproduce the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, various High Courts / Tribunals which has also been relied upon by the applicant on the issue of timely initiation of disciplinary proceedings against and officer.
24.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court India in its judgment dated 30.03.1999 in Capt. M Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr; has held as under: -
"There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, 'the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom.' The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Officers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery"at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex- parte departmental proceedings, to stand.
Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case."20 OA No. 3533/2019
Item No.26 /C-1 24.2. The Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in its judgment dated 03.03.2003 in WP (C) No. 5516 of 2002 (Gaya Singh vs. The Chairman Coal India Ltd. and Ors.) in para 8 and 12 has held under: -
"..8. Admittedly, for same set of charges, on the basis of evidences, as on the record of the Respondents, no case was made out against the petitioner for which the C.B.I. has to submit final form and the competent Criminal Court discharged the petitioner of the charges.
..12. For the reasons aforesaid and the decisions rendered by the different rendered by the different Courts, the respondents are prohibited from proceeding with the enquiry for same set of charges for which the criminal case against the petitioner was dropped. The departmental proceedings initiated vide charge sheet dated 2 May, 1988 and charge sheet dated 25 November, 1993 and are set aside.
24.3. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in its judgment dated 10.08.2021 in W.P.C. (OAC) No.1052 of 2013 (Samir Ranjan Sahoo vs. State of Odisha and Ors.) in paras 7, 8 & 9 has held as under: -
"7. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony and Mohammed Abdul Rahim (supra), the apex Court has categorically held that where departmental and criminal proceedings are based on similar charges and same set of documents and witnesses are relied on, it would be unjust, unfair and oppressive to continue the departmental proceeding after the delinquent is acquitted in the criminal proceeding. The ratio decided in the above case is squarely applicable to the present case. When the FIR lodged and ICC case instituted, due to want of sanction, the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner has been dropped, in that view of the matter, if on the selfsame allegation disciplinary proceeding is continuing then that should be dropped.
9. In the above view of the matter, this Court directs that let the petitioner file a comprehensive application indicating all the facts before disciplinary authority, within a period of two weeks hence, to drop the departmental proceeding, and in such event, the disciplinary authority shall do well to consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the application."21 OA No. 3533/2019
Item No.26 /C-1
25. We now deal with the challenge to the impugned memorandum of charge on the ground of inordinate delay. In the matter of Rajendra Shankar Shukla (reported in (2018) 14 SCC 92,), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the unexplained inordinate delay in issuing the charge sheet, made the following observations:
"12. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the High Court. However, it is necessary for us to highlight a few facts which were brought to our notice during the course of submissions made by learned counsel. The first issue of concern is the enormous delay of about 7 years in issuing a charge sheet against Shukla. There is no explanation for this unexplained delay. It appears that some internal discussions were going on within the Bank but that it took the Bank 7 years to make up its mind is totally unreasonable and unacceptable. On this ground itself, the charge sheet against Shukla is liable to be set aside due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in its issuance.
13. What compounds the default on the part of the Bank is that Shukla was placed in a higher category as a Manager on 19th July, 1994 while all these discussions were going on in the Bank. He was also allowed to cross the efficiency bar on 12th August, 1996 again while the discussions were going on. Surely, if the Bank was serious about proceeding against Shukla for misconduct, they would not only have taken prompt action in issuing a charge sheet but would not have granted him the benefit of being placed in a higher category or crossing the efficiency bar.
xxxxxxxx
19. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal filed by the Bank also on the ground that the punishment of dismissal could not have been imposed on Shukla after his superannuation."
26. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Dinesh Awasthi (WP No.4145/15 decided on 14.06.2022), after 22 OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1 surveying various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of inordinate delay, observed as under:
"8- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the charge-sheet was issued on 12.05.2014 for the misconduct pertaining to the year 2002-03 and 2003-04. Thereafter, preliminary enquiry was also got conducted by the then Deputy Collector and District Vigilance Officer. Thereafter, no action was taken against the petitioner for more than 10 years. It is only in the year of 2014 charge-sheet has been issued and the petitioner has been asked to participate in the enquiry and to conclude the same within a period of 03 months. Moreover, as per the notification No.C/5-2/87/3/11 dated 16.04.1987, the State Government has specifically asked all the departments to conclude the departmental enquiry within a year. Pendency of the departmental enquiry for more than 18 years has caused great prejudice to the petitioner and had to suffer mental agony as well as monetary loss. Hence, this case is squarely covered by the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Pratap Singh Chouhan (supra). No explanation for issuance of charge- sheet after a delay of more than 10 years has been putforth by the respondents in their reply."
27. The Hon'ble Madras High Court has also dealt with the issue of inordinate delay in issuing a charge memorandum in Union of India vs. Central Administrative Tribunal in W.P. No.16651/2019, observing as under:
"7. In the present case on hand, though a complaint has been received from the Assessee immediately, there is no need to wait for seven long years to issue a charge memo and therefore, it is obvious that there is a delay in issuance of charge memo. It is true that the Hon- ble Supreme Court reported in (1996) 3 SCC 157 in the case of Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excised Department Vs L.Srinivasan, while deciding the case of delay in issuance of charge memo, held that in the nature of charges, it would take a long time to detect embezzlement and fabrication of false records which should be done in secrecy. The matter may take time and that sufficient evidence have got to be taken before the issuance of charge memo and the limitation cannot be applicable in those cases and that the charge memo cannot be interfered on the ground of delay. But, at the same time, the present case on hand does not fall in that category for the simple reason that the Department, inspite of receipt of the 23 OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1 complaint from the Assessee, failed to act upon it with an immediate effect, proceed with the enquiry by issuance of charge memo and the Department would have completed the said exercise well before seven years instead of sleeping over for seven years. In a recent judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank and others Vs Rajendra Shankar Shukla, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 92, it was held in Paragraph Nos.12 & 13, which are extracted below:~ "12. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the High Court. However, it is necessary for us to highlight a few facts which were brought to our notice during the course of submission made by the learned counsel. the first issue of concern is the enormous delay of about 7 years in issuing a charge~sheet against Shukla. There is no explanation for this unexplained delay. It appears that some internal discussions were going on within the Bank but that it took the Bank 7 years to make up its mind is totally unreasonable and unacceptable. On this ground itself, the chargesheet against Shukla is liable to be set aside due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in its issuance.
13. What compounds the default on the part of the Bank is that Shukla was placed in a higher category as a Manager on 19.07.1994 while all these discussions were going on in the Bank. He was also allowed to cross the efficiency bar on 12.08.1996 again while the discussions were going on. Surely, if the Bank was serious about proceeding against Shukla for misconduct, they would not only have taken prompt action in issuing a charge-sheet but would not have granted him the benefit of being placed in a higher category or crossing the efficiency bar."
8. In view of the above dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, we find substance in the argument advanced by the Applicant, who is the 2nd respondent herein and in view of the inordinate delay involved in issuance of charge memo, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is liable to be upheld."
28. Before rendering any judgment on the subject matter, we must refer to the details of IPRs submitted by the applicant on 19.2.2015. The details throw ample light on the IPRs submitted by the applicant and also handled by the respondents for further action. It is clear from the details that Government of Uttar Pradesh vide their letters dated 06.2.2006 and 06.8.2008 mentioned that the applicant had submitted her IPR for the year 24 OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1 2004 and 2006, respectively. These details relates to many officers including the applicant and were submitted by Government of Uttar Pradesh to the Secretary Government of India, DOPT, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi. For the year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, the applicant has directly submitted IPR to Principal Secretary, Appointment Section-5, Government of Uttar Pradesh on 5.3.2008, however, the enclosure contains the IPR details as on 01.01.2007. Further, for the year 2008, the IPR was submitted by the applicant on 2.2.2009. Government of Uttar Pradesh vide their letter dated 12.8.2009 had sent the IPRs for the year 2008 of various IAS officers including the applicant to the Secretary Government of India, DOPT, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi. For the year 2009, the applicant had submitted her IPR to Joint Secretary, Appointment Section-5, Government of Uttar Pradesh on 25.1.2010 and vide their letter dated on 13.5.2010 Government of Uttar Pradesh sent the IPRs for the year 2009 of various IAS officers, including the applicant, to the Secretary Government of India, DOPT, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi. Suffice it is to state that the applicant submitted IPRs to the respondents. In view of this we do not agree with the stipulation mentioned in Article-II of the charge wherein it has been stated that the IPR for preceding years were only received on 12.12.2011 and 13.12.2011 by the competent authority.
25OA No. 3533/2019 Item No.26 /C-1
29. On perusal of the laid down law and other details discussed supra, we find that there is hardly any explanation for the inordinate and unexplained delay, much less a satisfactory one. Therefore, in the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the second Article of charge is also liable to be quashed and set aside purely on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay of about seven years.
30. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances, we dispose of the present OA by passing the following order: -
(a) Charge memorandum F. No. 106/03/2018-AVD 1/C dated 14.6.2019 is quashed and set aside.
(b) Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
(c) There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice Ranjit More)
Member (A) Chairman
/mk/