Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
M George vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 7 December, 2021
1
Item No. 21 O.A. No. 3553/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 3553/2019
This the 7th day of December, 2021
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Mr. M. George, Age 50 years, Group 'A'
Son of Mr. M.V. Varghese
Working as JT. Director-I/C, SRO,
Marol, Mumbai, Maharashtra
R/o 27/425, ESCIC Nagar,
New Link Road, Andheri West,
Mumbai-400053
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. N.S. Dalal with Mr. Devesh Pratap
Singh and Mr. Alok Kumar)
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
(Through the Director General)
Panchdeep Bhawan
Kotla Road, New Delhi-110002
...Respondent
(By Advocate: Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan )
2
Item No. 21 O.A. No. 3553/2019
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):
"(i) Set-aside and quash the impugned Orders dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Respondent vide which new Inquiry Authority as well as Presenting Officer was appointed and de-
novo disciplinary proceedings are ordered against the Applicant and also set aside the subsequent order dated 15.11.2019 vide which the representation of the applicant was rejected;
(ii) Direct the Inquiry Authority appointed vide order dated 04.09.2018 to submit the Inquiry Report on the basis of the Inquiry Proceedings held before him;
(iii) Award costs of the present original application in favour of the applicant and against the respondent; and
(iv) Pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the applicant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that while the applicant was working as Joint Director (SRO), the 3 Item No. 21 O.A. No. 3553/2019 respondents issued a charge memorandum dated 31.05.2018 alleging that he approved highly inflated C-18 (Adhoc) demand notices in contradiction to the guidelines/instructions issued by the ESIC. In response thereto, he submitted a detailed response on 05.06.2018. Vide order dated 04.09.2018, the Disciplinary Authority appointed the Inquiry Officer (IO). The disciplinary proceedings were concluded, but before the IO could submit his report, the respondents vide separate orders dated 07.11.2019 appointed a new Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the applicant, vide charge memo dated 31.05.2018. The applicant submitted detailed representation dated 08.11.2019 for revocation of the orders dated 07.11.2019 and to allow the earlier IO to submit his report. However, vide order dated 15.11.2019, the respondents declined to withdraw the orders dated 07.11.2019. Hence, this O.A.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after completion of the inquiry proceedings, when the 4 Item No. 21 O.A. No. 3553/2019 IO was about to submit his report, appointment of another inquiry officer vide order dated 07.11.2019 and direction to initiate de novo inquiry, is not permissible under the law.
4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit. Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there was inordinate delay in completing the inquiry proceedings. Some complaints were also received regarding bias shown by the IO in conduct of the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. It was further alleged that the Presenting Officer had worked under the applicant, and the respondents had to change the IO vide order dated 07.11.2019. It is stated that there is no violation of the rules in passing the impugned order.
4. Heard Mr. N.S. Dalal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the pleadings on record.
5Item No. 21 O.A. No. 3553/2019
5. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant vide order dated 31.05.2018 were concluded and the IO had to submit its report. Change of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer at that belated stage tantamounts to initiation of fresh inquiry, which is impermissible under the law.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suryabhan Balarao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1989) 1 CLR 395, held that it is not open to order fresh or de novo inquiry only to fill up the lacuna in the earlier inquiry, and that by ordering a fresh inquiry, very valuable rights of the delinquent were taken away by the disciplinary authority.
7. In the case in hand, the inquiry officer though had concluded the inquiry, but before he could submit his report, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) ordered appointment of a new inquiry officer, on the basis of some complaints of bias against the Inquiry Officer. The DA could have at least waited for the submission of inquiry report and recorded a finding contrary to the one recorded by the Inquiry Officer, in case it felt that the findings in 6 Item No. 21 O.A. No. 3553/2019 the report were incorrect or biased. However, the DA devised his own method and straightway appointed a new Inquiry Officer, which is contrary to the settled position of law.
8. In view of the settled position of law, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The O.A. is, therefore, allowed and the impugned orders dated 07.11.2019 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondents with a direction to proceed in the matter from the stage of conclusion of the Inquiry. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Manjula Das)
Member (J) Chairman
/jyoti/vb/