Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Narender Kumar Gupta vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 September, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI OA NO.927/2011 MA 2184/2011 NEW DELHI THIS THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011 HONBLE MR. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLER SMT. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER (A) Shri Narender Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Chandgi Ram Gupta, Working as L.D.C. in the office of Directorate of Information & Publicity, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Resident of 333, Neemri Colony, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri D.R. Gupta) VERSUS 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through its Chief Secretary, Players Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Secretary Services, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Players Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Divisional Commissioner 5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi-110054. 4. Director of Information & Publicity Block No.9, Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054. Respondents. (By Advocate: Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi) ORDER MR. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J):
The applicant has sought the following reliefs in this Original Application:-
(i) To allow the O.A. with costs on Respondents.
(ii) To direct the Respondents to regularize the period of suspension by treating it as on duty and to pay the full pay and allowances for the period of suspension, in terms of the Standing Instructions issued by the Govt.
(iii) To direct the Respondents to consider the promotion of the applicant to the Gr.III (DASS) U.D.C. from the post of L.D.C. Gr.IV (DASS) from the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits.
(iiii) To direct the Respondents grant second financial upgradation to the applicant w.e.f. 28.06.2000 i.e. the date on which the applicant became eligible for the said benefit with all consequential benefits.
(iv) To direct the Respondents to work out the pay and allowances of the applicant and pay the difference between the subsistence allowance received by him during the period of suspension and full pay and allowances for the aforesaid period by treating as he was on duty and treating the suspension as wholly unjustified.
(v) To direct the Respondents to pay the interest on the arrears of pay and allowances on the basis of the pay so fixed after grant of promotion to the post of UDC from the date his junior were promoted, ACP from 28.06.2000 and to consider him for further promotion to the next higher post.
(vi) To direct the Respondents to pay the cost of this litigation.
(vii) Any other order/relief or direction which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet ends of justice.
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this case are delineated here. The CBI conducted a raid in the office of the Spl. Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 on 16.08.1995, while the applicant was working there as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and in consequence thereof, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 17.08.1995 under Sub-Rule 2 (a) of Rule 10 of C.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1965 by an order issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. On 06.02.2002, the CBI filed a Closure Report in the court of Special Judge, CBI, Tis Hazari, Delhi stating that the amount of Rs.440/- found with the applicant was his own money and no material evidence was there against him is support of the charge of illegal gratification. Accordingly, the Spl. Judge, vide Annexure A-2 order dated 20.02.2002, closed the case. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 3, namely, the Divisional Commissioner vide his Annexure A-3 order dated 04.06.2003 noting that the Special Judge had closed the case against the applicant revoked his suspension and reinstated him in service without prejudice to disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against him. Thereafter, he was posted with the Directorate of Information & Publicity w.e.f. 16.02.2004. The submission of the applicant is that even after his suspension was revoked and he was reinstated in service way back on 04.06.2003 and since then he has been working continuously with the respondents, they have not taken any action either to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against him or to treat the suspension period as period spent on duty or not, even though he has made several representations to them. As a result, the respondents have denied him all benefits which are due to him on account of increments, promotion to the post of Grade III (DASS) and financial upgradation under ACP Scheme etc.
3. The respondents have not disputed the aforesaid facts stated by the applicant in their counter affidavit. However, the submission of the Respondent No.4, namely, the Dte. of Information and Publicity which filed the counter affidavit is that they have informed the Respondent No.2, namely, the Services Department of the Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi vide letter dated 27.08.2010 that the applicant was placed under suspension while he was working in the office of Deputy Commissioner but the Services Department did not receive any communication from them as to how his suspension period was to be treated. By letter dated 01.11.2010, the Services Department again asked the Dte. of Information and Publicity, Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi about the status of treating the suspension period of the applicant. The Revenue Department, Land and Building Department and Food & Supplies Consumers Affairs Department were also asked to send them the vigilance clearance. Further, they have submitted that the name of the applicant came in the consideration zone for promotion in the year 1997 but could not be considered due to non-availability of his complete service records. Further, he was under suspension during the period from 17.08.1995 to 04.06.2003 and he was reinstated only on 16.02.2004. Later, he was exempted from the requirement of typing test on attaining the age of 45 years, vide order dated 13.07.2005. Thereafter, his case for promotion was taken up again and it was under active consideration with the department but because the aforesaid requisite information which is mandatory to assess the eligibility of the applicant for promotion to the post of Grade-III (DASS) was not available, his case could not be placed before the DPC so far. They have, however, stated that as soon as the necessary records are made available, his case would be considered for promotion to the post of Grade-III (DASS).
4. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant Shri D.R. Gupta and the learned counsel for the respondents Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi. The undisputed facts in this case are that the applicant was exonerated in the criminal case pending before the CBI court way back on 20.02.2002. However, it took another two years for the then Divisional Commissioner to reinstate him in service vide its order dated 16.02.2004 pending disciplinary action to be taken. Since then the Applicant has been making representations to regularize the period of his suspension and to consider him for further promotion. It was because of the sheer negligence and carelessness on the part of the Office of the Divisional Commissioner, the disciplinary authority did not take any decision for almost a decade as to how the suspension period from 17.08.1995 to 04.06.2003 is to be treated, irrespective of the fact that it is a statutory requirement on the part of the disciplinary authority to do so after the acquittal of an employee in terms of FR 54-B, which reads as under:-
F.R. 54-B. (1) When a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement (including premature retirement) while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order-
regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement (including premature retirement), as the case may be, and
(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.
5. The unfortunate victim of inaction and dereliction of duty on the part of the disciplinary authority in the Office of the Divisional Commissioner is the Applicant himself. For none of his fault, he has been denied consideration for promotion to Grade III (DASS) from 1997. Even after 14 years the applicants case for promotion has not even been placed before the DPC. The strange thing in this case is that even after filing this OA, the Respondents have not taken any remedial measures and the case of the Applicant is being tossed from one department to another. Further, the Divisional Commissioner and the Services Department have not even bothered to file their counter affidavit and they left it to the Directorate of Information & Publicity who has nothing much to do with his promotion. The Services Department has been simply writing letters to Revenue Department, Land and Building department, Food and Supplies Consumers Affairs department to file status report in the matter for all these years and still no final decision has been taken. Writing letter and reminding the departments are not sufficient. They also cannot act as if they are helpless in the matter. What is required is result and that too in a time bound manner.
6. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this OA. Consequently the first and second respondents, namely, the Chief Secretary and the Secretary Services, Govt. of NCT of Delhi are directed to ensure co-ordination of all the relevant departments in the matter and to see that the statutory obligation of the disciplinary authority under FR 54 B(I) is carried out in the case of the applicant even at this belated stage without any further delay but in any case, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, all his claims for increment, promotion and financial benefits under ACP etc. shall also be considered and settled in accordance with the rules, within one month, under intimation to him. The applicant is also entitled for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as cost of litigation which shall be paid to him immediately. However, the respondent no.1 may recover the said amount from the salary and allowances of the officials who are/were responsible for causing delay in the matter, if considered necessary, after payment of the aforesaid amount is made to the applicant.
(Manjulika Gautam) (George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /jk/