Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Sachin Ashok Patil vs Home Affairs on 24 February, 2023
Rea is ThA. Mad heme a8 Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench, Mumbai ~ CLA. Nab82/20e2 Peet a aera ney SPYYR Wades, TASS Order reserved on 20° February, 2023 Order pronounced on 24" February, 2023 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit ¥. More, Chairman Hon'ble Mr, Shri Krishna, Member ( A) sachin Ashok Patil, IPS Age 42 years, occupation Service, presently (Nashik Rural), Nashik, District: 3 lashik, State of Maharashtra -- 422 207 . Applicant (Mr. RG Walia and Mr. Vishwajeet V Mohite, Advocates) Versus im Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affiirs, Govt, of India North Block, New Delhi 110 001 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Chief Secretary Mantrslaya, Mumbai 406 032 3. The Additional Chief Seeratary Through Home Department, Mantralaya, Mirmbai 400 032 (Mr. RR Shetty, Advocate for respondent No.1 -- Ram ho. ORDER
Justice Ranjit V. More:
Mr. ROR Shetty, leamed counse! for respondent No.1 and "i? is Dr VS Masurkar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 é& 3 at length.
2. 'The applicant has approached this Tribunal by Sling the instant O.A. seeking quashment of the charge sheet dated 61.01.2019, with all consequential benefits, namely, promotion to the Selection Grade and Super Time Scale afler opening the sealed cover, in accordance with the recommendations contained therein.
ft & The apphcant ts an IPS officer of 2006 batch (Maharashtra cadre), It is his case that in the year 2014, he met one Smt. Suman Rawet, an LAS officer of 2010 batch (Maharashtra cadre) and fell ia love. They stayed together in Osmanabad. As a matter of feet, they were in live-in relationship and were to get married. [t is also the ease of GLA, Nese hen No.8 Mie oat Pl re Do pyyreet sere. Sey be ihe applicant that Smt Suman Rawat seams to have come San men . eres Sep geass teeny erent he Be ATTEN ER manipulated and consciously strategized a scheme to dupe and remove the applicant from her life, so-as to get close te On 27.11.2015, Smt. Suman Rawat Aled a complaint before the Chief Seerstary, Government of Maharashtra in respect of the incident dated 05.09.2015. It was alleged in the complaint that the applicant on 05.09.2015 barged into the residence of C.E.O., Zilla Parishad, Thane at 7 PM and physically assaulted her. It Was stated in the complaint that she recently got ransierred as CEQ, MSRLM and owing to non. availability of accommodation, she was staying at her batshimate's place, However, at that time, her batchmate was not present at home and his mother, whom she was talking at that moment, tried to protect her from the physical bouts by the applicant.
respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and the isauiry off * a eo Saxe oe Spek ooee he A STARS Amat otha Y of EBay xk $3 ihe report to the Additional Chief Sec cpetary, Heme on 22.01.2016. In pursuant to the fact-finding IMWUITY report, a charge sheet was prepared in the 3 year 2017, however, the SAME Was Hot issued to the applicant.
It is the case of the applicant that he became due for sioinotion to the Selection Grade, Le., an IPS officer, whe completed 13 vears of service, is entitled to be promoted to ~ the said Grade. He was due for said promotion in January, 2019 and only to stall his promotion and adversely affect his career, the impugned charge sheet was issued to the applicant on 01.01.2019.
It is the specific case of the applicant that while issuing the said charge sheet, the respondents deleted the portion about his relationship with said Smt Suman Rawat. In the month of May, 2019, the applicant submitted his staternent of defence to the said charge sheet. In the interregnum, he became due for promotion to the Super Tiree Seale in the month of January, 2020. The * 3 respondents thereafisr anpointed the inquiry officer on 28.12.2020, however, no progress is made th ereatier.
ort Oss, NERS oss Hn NS So far as the inguiry is concerned, it is alleged that n MRS . oy ywur bya AO PAs Aayiedsgt 4 mal even a single day, the inquiry has been conducted in the cass. In these circumstances, the applicant approached Tribumal for the rellefs stated hereinabove on the ground that there is inordinate delay in concluding the inquiry proceedings.
at
3. The O.A. was placed before the Division Bench on 06.09.2022 and after hearing the matter, relying upon the decision of Hon"ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & another, (2015) 16 SCC 41S, the Division Bench issued notice te the respondents and in the misantime, directed them to mautiain status quo regarding the charge sheet in question,
5. In pursuance fo the notice, the respondent Nod --
Union of India chose not to file any reply, as, according to them, their presence is nol necessary at the siage of deparimental procesdings, However, on bdehalf of 2 respondent Nes. 2 & 3, an affidavit In reply was filed, opposing the O.A, vehemently, 1 is the case of responden SLA, Nao age teni Nes Nox. 2 & 3 that the applicant has approached dis Tribunal al premature stage, despite the fact that no cause of action w & has arisen to him. The said respondents further submitted that the Government has taken a consclous decision to initiate departmental proceedings agains! the applicant. The Chief Minister, being the competent authority, has given appreval to initiate the departmental inquiry and there is no delay in issuance of the che arge sheet against the applicant. The reapondent Nos. 2 & 3 lastly submitted that the O.A. is devoid of any merit and the same deserves ta be dismissed,
7. We have perused the charge sheet issued to the applicant, It pertains to the incident occurred on 05.09.2013 In respect of which a complaint was filed by EE Smit. Suman Rawat, allegin ig that the applicant barged into YEE hane the place of residence of CEQ, Zilla Parisha ad, T iY without permission and she was as ssaulted and manhandisd by him, As stated above, the chars ge sheet is challenged on the ground of delay and we are called upon to decide ters No 8 wh sther VY eriok ¢ WERSESED TYE SOOM. 4 8 The law governing the delay in conclusion of the departmental inquiry is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. N Radhakrishan (1998) 4 SCC 154, the Apex Court held that there are no pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations; and each case has to be considered taking into account all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay, pariiculariy when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. It was also held that unexplained delay in conclusion of the proceedings itself is an indication of prejudice caused to the employee. The Apex Court made the following observations: -
"TR, Ro is mot possible to lay down any in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that n og cgaarg' mea x Pai ties: went wecen . & ' ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be * tox OA. Ma Geese Hey Nog ie ~~ termined es * nen artined on the facts zg "ey and oclrcurnstances $.in that case. "The essence of the at 5 matter is that the court has to take into consideration Gey j all relevant factors sand to balance e and weigh them to <= deter emiine if Nis in the interest clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against bien are consiuded expeditiously and he is not made to ndergo mental agony and ulso monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any Tealt on his part in delaying the proceedings. In. considering whether delay has -vitiated the disciplinary proveedines the court has te consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. if the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is is writ large on the face of it, It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the:
basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. [f he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary procesdings should be allowed to take dts course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats Fustice, Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless 7e
- can be shown that he is to blame for 4 e delay or ten there is proper explanation for 'be delay in conduct ng the disciplinary proceedings. U imately, the court is to ba Jane _ these ave diverse considerations."
%, In POY Mahadevan v. MD, TIN . Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636, the Apex Court held that inivation of departmental proceedings in the absence of convincing Rem Xo.
2PN Row RETA Sei Oa Nao See 3 aa ' % et ees ee ae eyes oe bos at e ox ; als noe explanation by the respondent employer for inardinete Giay Of 10 years would be very prejudicial to the x = ih.
appellant, The Apex Court made the following observations: -
"li. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is:
necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proeeedings would be much more the the punishment, For the mistakes committed by the department. in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be re, taade to suffer."
* In Prem Nath Ball's case (supra), the Apex Court fixed the outer limit of one year for completion of ceparimental Inquiry. Paragraph 28 of the said judgment reads thus: ~ GAS NOG AN22 PRS a : easy SS iteay Nod "28. Reeping these factars in mind, we 4 are me i the sorsidered opinion that every on iployer State or private} must make sincere endeayour te conclude the departmental enquiry proceedings Once miliated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible Ht should be comciaded within six months as an outer limit. Where H is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arisi ng in the proceedings within the time-frame then efforts should be made to concludes within reasenably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inguiry but not more than a year.' 1 In the light of authoritative decisions, as referred to pewed ' hereinabove, it is clear that the departmental inquiry against the government employee should be concluded expeditiously and delay in concluding the same causes prejudice to the employee. Tt is also clear that in ths absence of any explanation in concluding the departmental inquiry on the part of the employer, the deparimental inquiry can be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay.
lg. dn the light of the above decisions, we shall consider the case of the applicant. As stated above, the applicant's case is that he was in relat lonship with Smut. Suman Rawat and they were in Hvesiners slationship and were to get go pot tet AS se ows: fea ¥2 Tad ey bier married. The incident, which gave rise to the disciplinary BAAS Teepe amartalen. de VE Se ey me AGN NY ye DFOCeEAMIES, Periains ta 2ULR; te be precise, 05.09.2078, The allegation is that the applicant barged into the place of residences of CEQ, Zilla Parishad, Thane without permission and she was assaniied and manhandled by him. The esse of the applicant is thet though he was in reintionship with Smt. Suman Rawat, who seems to have come close to another TAS officer. In respect of this incident, no criminal proceedings are initiated, howev er, a complaint was filed belatedly on 17.11.2015, ie, afer lapse of one and half months to Chief Secretary. Thereafter, the inquiry was initiated and the report owas submutied by the inquiry officer in 2016. In pursuance to o the reporl, a charge sheet was prepared by the respondents against the applicant in 2017, a copy of which t respondents, 3, We have perused Annexure -- 1 of the memorandum a eS ; ae yg 34 . wey oy rere en of charge of 2017, which clearly alleges that said Smt Suman Rewat was in relationship with the applicant. Be tr aa A A AMS BOMBA OVA. Np See?
lam No qe thet as it may, this charge sheet, however, was never served tpn the annlicant and nothing happened thereafier f ape hots or the period of one and half years. The applicant was, therefore, under the impression that the controversy ari ising out of the said incident ccourred on 05.09.2015 was put to STi
14. The applicant was due for promotion in January, 2019 and itis the specific allegation of the applicant that in order to stall his promotion, the present charge sheet was issued on 01.01.2019. This charge sheet is more or less similar to the one issued in 2017 and only the reference to applicant's relationship with Smt, Suman Rawat is delete in May, 2019, the applicant filed his statement of defence to the said charge sheet. Thereafter also, nothing was done by the respondents tll 28.12.2020, on which date the respondents appointed the inquiry and presenting officer after nearly 23 months. However, no explanations are 3 given by the respondents regarding delay of 23 months ix 3 appomling the inquiry as well as presenting officer.
CLA.
dain Nas } S ne y3 eck Sty Seeehiagway a ad Se RE ge cee ry mg PLS segeega tam bak. LHOUEE US MIQLETY @11G BYTSSSmine Goer were ¢ ¢ y wert sy ody Rey 6 YO ty APY os. appainted fhrcagh an order dated 28.12.2020, no Sargeant is age: ba faye tee Asmarswartal movement is seen. in cereluding the departmental ; eye. xs or eo 235 ofa ov awgn Pep eegs oo ry proceedings UU Ancust, 2022 and, therefore, the applicant was constrained to appreach this Tribunal by way of instant O.A. seeking quashment of subject charge sheet dated 01.01.2019 on the ground of inordinate delay. Vids the respondents to maintain status quo regarding the charge sheet, noting that a period of 20 months have since passed after the appointment of inquiry and presenting officers, but the inquiry did not proceed. The incident is of September, 2015, the fact-Imding inquiry report was submitted In 2016 and charge sheet was prepared in 2017 but mot served on the applicant and thereafter, the impugned charge sheet was issued on 01.01.2019. The inquiry officer was also appointed belatedly afler 23 months and thereafter also, for the period of 20 months, the imquiry officer did not proceed further, In the Ught of this, the deeisions referred to above are perfectly appl icable to the [acts of the present case, provided there is Hani ss.8 ho explanation on the part of the respondent-~Depariment tg OU Ege.
ae we | z ee ie ae
16. We have heard and considered the rival submissions of leamed counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 so gone through the affidavit In reply fled by fe & ew ts wt og, % Bo eh them, in detail Absolutely, there is not even a single xplanation for delay in issuing the charge shee! omting the ing tury and presentir ing offlcers: and app & > thereafter concluding the departmental inquiry. In the absence of any explanation, we find merit in applicant's case and on this ground alone, we are inclined ko quash -
and set aide the impugned charge sheet dated 01.01.2019.
1, Before parting with this order, we must refer to | the submissions made by learned counsel. for re spondent Nos.
2 & 3, The O.A. is opposed on the ground that there is no s, cause of action to the applicant and the OLA. is premature, We are unable to accept this submission in the light of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above.
The Apex Court in i umequivocal terms has held that the departmental in iquiry Im any ease should be completed oe Ae od * gs BESRESHY ane call Fag, tg SU apt TE ego de Saber os ass TEh SAVE sort Ss = within 6 year and if there is delay without ANY GNINSNANGN See fees foVErMmant = on the part of the respondents, the concerec oS ; 4 Poke 3 ee a re $e a "eh ss yee Teteay 4 employes would be prejudiced. The inordinate delay ir CO GIng Ine Geparimeantal WiQhiry without t explanation by the employer is 8 valid ground to challenge the charge raced by Dr. V S Masurkar, learned ed TAI ye) ee @.
£3 © £% eS.
fo counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 on Section 20 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is also misconceived. In the present case, the applicant has challenged the memorandum of charge. There are no remedies available to the applicant under the relevant service rules to redress his grievance before the respondents: and, therefore, the applicant can challenge the memorandum of charge only before the Tribunal on the valid ground. As stated above, the merdinate delay without any explanation is a ground to challerige the memorandum of charge.
i®. That apart under Section 20 of Administrative Yribunals Act, 1988, the Tribunal shall not ordinar a aAY LA, Ne oS sepa %.
rails able to) hin tinder th 1 ot, tis poem pte Er a ae £2 ian pat
i) me pee Oo ope pax "4 3] bad availed af all 4 relevant service rules. The word "ordinary? is Interpreted oy the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unien of India & another vo Hemraj Si agh Chanhan & others (2010) 4 SCC 290. The Apex Court held that the word "ordinarily must be given its ordinary mes ning. While construing word, the Courl must not be oblivious of the COMER In which it has been used. In the case in hand, the word "ordinarily" has been used in the context of promotional opportunities of officers concemed. In such a sit uation, the word "ordinarily" has to be construed in order to falfi statutory intent for which it has been used. The word "ordinarily" means that it does not. promote a cast-fron rule, it is flexible. I excludes someth; ung which is extraordinary or special. The word "ordinarily? would convey the idea of something which is dene "nor: mally"
and "generally" subject to special provision in the Ught of the interpretation by the Apex Court, the objection of Dr Mea surkar, isamed counsel for respondents in this regard is overruled.43
CLA Kad tem NOS ye Tey ee + ame Bog igang Soe eee =
20. in the totality of facts and clraumstances ofthe case, we are oF the considered yiew that there is Inordinate delay respondents. It is also not the case of the respondents that folever le -s Ma the nesiie ny eomehisine de delay is attributable to the applicant in concliding the
21. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the departmental inquiry, if continued against the applicant, will cause great prejudice to him, especially looking into. the nature of allegations made therein: and, therefore, the gare ts quashed and set asids and O.A. is allowed, applicant will be entitled to all consequential benefits.
22. Pending M.A,, ifany, shall stand disposed of There shall be no order as to cusis.
(Str Keim na} ( Justice Ranjit Vi Mere) Member (A) Chairman fsunily