Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sudhir Ranjan Senapati vs Union Of India Through on 6 August, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.942/2009
With
OA No.1194/2008
New Delhi, this the 6th day of August, 2010
Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman
Honble Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A)
OA No.942/2009
Sudhir Ranjan Senapati
S/o Sh. Baishnab Chanran Senapati
R/o 64, Shaid Nagar, BBSDR,
P.S. Sahid Nagar, Distt. Khurda. Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. P.P. Khurana, Sr. Adv. With Ms. Seema
Pandey)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chairman,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-110 001. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. V.P. Uppal)
OA No.1194/2008
Alok Nath s/o Late Sh. Gupeshwar Nath,
R/o 108, Palmwood Estate,
Sector 21-D, Faridabad (Haryana). Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. P.P. Khurana, Sr. Adv. With Ms. Seema
Pandey)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chairman,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-110 001. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. V.P. Uppal)
ORDER (ORAL)
Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:
By this common order we propose to dispose of two connected Original Applications bearing Nos. 942/2008 and 1194/2008 as common question of law has been raised in both these Applications. Learned counsel for the parties also suggest likewise.
2. In the context of limited controversy raised at this stage, it may not be necessary to refer to the facts in detail. Suffice it may, however, to mention that the applicants are facing departmental enquiry with regard to Charge Memo dated 01.04.2008 served upon them. During the pendency of these Applications, applicants have filed Misc. Application bearing No.1918/2009 wherein it has, inter alia, been pleaded that the respondents had not obtained approval of the President viz. the disciplinary authority to various charges and imputations on which those charges were based. It is further pleaded and urged by Mr. Khurana, learned senior counsel representing the applicants, that even though the Charge Memo dated 01.04.2008 may say that the President has proposed to hold an enquiry against the applicants, but the same was not approved by the competent authority viz. Finance Minister. It is further pleaded that the respondents only obtained the approval of the competent authority for initiation of disciplinary proceedings without brining to his notice the various charges and imputations on which those charges were based and the approval for initiating disciplinary proceedings is not synonymous with approval for issuance of the charge memo, and that it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to have taken the approval of the Minister to the charge memo, which was proposed to be issued, before the same was actually served upon the applicants. Having not done so, the whole proceedings, right from the date of issuance of charge memo, are without the sanction of law and are, therefore, liable to be quashed, thus contends the learned senior counsel.
3. The respondents have filed reply to the Misc. Application referred to above wherein it has been pleaded that the contention raised by the applicants that no approval of the competent authority i.e. Finance Minister was obtained for issuance of the proposed charge sheet on the charged officers before serving upon them is wrong, as the factual position is that the charge memos dated 1.4.2008 issued to the applicants were in consonance with the charges as approved by the Finance Minister. It is then pleaded that even though the charge memos were issued by the Under Secretary in terms of the Article 77 (3) of the Constitution of India, the imputations of charge are exactly the same as have been approved by the Finance Minister. It is then pleaded that nowhere in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, it has been provided to obtain approval of the disciplinary authority for issuing charge sheets. The rule only speaks of drawing or causing to be drawn up a charge sheet and delivering or causing to deliver the same to the charged officer.
4. The pleadings made in the reply in the first blush may appear to show that the Finance Minister had approved the charges ultimately framed against the applicant, but the same does not appear to be true from the records as have been produced before us. Mr. Uppal, counsel defending the respondents, has made available to us the original records for our perusal, which we have seen, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that when various allegations against the applicants were brought to the notice of the Minister, he approved initiation of proceedings against them, but so far the charges that came to be framed against the applicants are concerned, the same have not been approved by the Minister concerned. The Tribunal has already held that for approving the charges that may ultimately come to be served upon an employee, approval of the disciplinary authority is necessary. Our judgment has been upheld by Honble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.10452/2009 in the matter of Union of India & Ors. V/s. B.V. Gopinath, vide orders dated 28th July, 2009.
5. In view of the position as mentioned above, this Tribunal is left with no choice but for to quash Charge Memos dated 01.04.2008 in both the OAs. We order accordingly. The respondents would, however, be at liberty to proceed against the applicants, if the Minister concerned may approve the charges sought to be framed and served upon the applicants.
6. With the observations, as made above, both these two Original applications stand disposed of.
(L.K. Joshi) (V.K. Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /naresh/