Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs Lieutenant Governor on 2 May, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No.250/2013
M.A. No.2251/2013
New Delhi, this the 2nd day of May, 2014
HONBLE SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE SHRI P.K. BASU, MEMBER (A)
Mahesh Kumar Gupta
S/o late Shri Om Prakash Gupta,
R/o Flat No. 120, Pocket A/3,
Sector-7, Rohini,
Delhi-110085 . Applicant
(Through Shri Rajshekhar Rao with Shri Nitish Gupta, Advocate)
Versus
1. Lieutenant Governor, Delhi
Government of NCT of Delhi
Raj Niwas,
Delhi-11054.
2. Government of NCT of Delhi,
Through Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
3. Government of NCT of Delhi,
Through Director Vigilance
Directorate of Vigilance
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
4. Government of NCT of Delhi,
Through Secretary-cum-Commissioner
Food & Supplies
K-Block, Vikas Bhawan,
New Delhi.
5. Government of NCT of Delhi,
Through Secretary-cum-Divisional Commissioner
5 Shamnath Marg,
Delhi-110054
6. Union Public Service Commission
through Chairman
Dholpur House, Shahjajan Road,
New Delhi-110069 .Respondents
(Through Smt. Sumedha Sharma, Advocate)
ORDER
Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A):
The present OA has been filed challenging order dated 25.09.2012 passed by the learned Lieutenant Governor, Delhi by which penalty of reduction in pay by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years without cumulative effect with further direction that the applicant will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay was imposed upon the applicant.
2. The applicant is a Tehsildar and the allegation against him is that he attested a photograph of one Shri Arif son of Shri Mohd. Islam resident of Village Dindarpur, Distt.South West Delhi. Admittedly the applicant did not know Shri Arif personally and relied on General Power of Attorney (GPA) in the name of Smt. Tabassum wife of Shri Arif son of Shri Mohd. Islam, which has been attested by the Commanding Officer of NCC and introduction by the Village Pradhan, who tendered a statement confirming his identity. Being satisfied, the applicant attested the said photograph certifying that it was of the person in front of him, who identified himself as Arif. Later on it turned out that Shri Arif was an alleged terrorist of Lashkar-e-Toiba and based on his attestation, Shri Arif had been able to obtain a Ration Card in his name from the Food and Supplies Department. The allegation against the applicant is as follows:
That the said Sh. Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Grade-I (DASS) while posted as Tehsildar in the office of Dy. Commissioner, Palam Circle, attested a photograh of an alleged terrorist of Lashkar-e-Taiba outfit and enabling the said terrorist to obtain a ration card from Circle 28 thereby allowing the said alleged terrorist to establish a base in Delhi for nefarious and terrorist activities thus jeopardizing the security and integrity of India by his act.
Thus, Sh. Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Tehsildar/ Grade-I (DASS) failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant thereby violating the provision of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The applicant made it clear that allegation against him is that he enabled Shri Arif, through attestation of his photograph, to obtain a Ration Card thereby allowing a terrorist to establish a base in Delhi. Nowhere is the allegation made that he was in cohorts with the terrorist. The allegation is that his mistake of attesting the photograph led to issuance of Ration Card to a person who was involved in nefarious activities. It is also informed that the said terrorist was later killed in an encounter.
3. A departmental inquiry was held and the inquiry officer submitted a detailed report in the matter concluding as follows:
In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has partly established to the extent that CO had attested that CO had attested photograph of one person Shri Arif and nothing beyond that. Hence the pivot of the charge stands `NOT PROVED against the charged official.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further pointed out that in the inquiry report, the inquiry officer has held that it was not a prerequisite condition to furnish an attested photocopy of the applicant for obtaining a Card from Foods and Supplies Department. The inquiry officer has also held that:
When Pradhan of the village accompanied ShriArif in order to get his photograph attested and there was nothing on Arif were doubtful, I conclude that it will be unjust to say that CO was aware of the fact that ShriArif was a terrorist. The inquiry officer further observed as follows:
6.2.4 As regards Part iv) of the charge, SW-1 clearly stated that he was required to verify the application form only and not the issue of attestation of photograph affixed on it. SW-1 also averred that CO might have taken all the necessary precautions while attesting the photograph in question. The other two State Witnesses did not testify this part of the charge at all. PO also failed to extract any support from the documentary evidences adduced by him in these proceedings to prove this part of the charge. Instead CO while advancing the list of additional documents specifically asked for the instructions to be complied with while attesting the photographs and the prosecution failed to furnish any such specific instructions. I am in agreement with the CO when he contended that after attaining his satisfaction if he had attested the photograph of ShriArif there was no general examination CO categorically submitted that in order to attain his satisfaction he asked for the residence-proof of the person and when the latter furnished a copy of GPA executed in his favour in respect of the property in which he was residing and apart from that since he was accompanied by the Pradhan of the village, he had no reason to suspect the identification of the person and thereafter only he attested the photograph in question. It is also on the police record that Mohd. Abdul Aziz @ Arif was found to be residing in village Deenpur, Najafgarh, Delhi. Thus I too do not find any irregularity in the attestation of the photograph of Shri Arif.
5. It is further alleged that the inquiry officers report was received on 27.08.2007 but the disagreement note was issued after almost two years in May 2009 (though the disagreement note does not specifically contain any date). The charge sheet was issued on 18.02.2005. After about two years the inquiry officer submitted his report and two years thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued the disagreement note and the disciplinary authority passed his order on 24.11.2009. The appellate order of the Lt. Governor was passed almost 33 months thereafter on 25.09.2012. Because of this long delay, the applicant was denied his promotion as a DANICS officer for which he became eligible as early as March 2006 and forced to work under the officers junior to him.
6. The short case of the applicant is that as a Tehsildar, he has to undertake such attestation of several people throughout the day and it is not possible for him to know each and every person personally before attestation. In fact, it was pointed out that in his order, the Lt. Governor has in fact held that Attesting photograph of a person necessarily indicates personal knowledge about the identity of the person attested. It is vehemently argued that it is impossible for a field officer like Tehsildar to follow this and neither there are any instructions to this effect. It was also pointed out that in the order of the learned Lt. Governor, it has also been mentioned that The appellant had neither got the Pradhan of the village Dindarpur to depose as a defense witness to prove that he had identified `Arif as a bonafide resident of the village, nor does the GPA document mentions `Arif to be a resident of Dindarpur whereas the GPA clearly mentions Dindarpur. It is, therefore, argued that the learned Lt. Governor had based his decision on these two wrong assumptions.
7. It is also argued by the applicant that two officers of the Food and Supplies Department who issued the Ration Card have been let off in the departmental inquiry and in this regard, the order of the respondents in respect of one of them i.e. Shri R.S. Lakra has been annexed in which the respondents have exonerated him of the charges which were similar to the charges leveled against the applicant. So the applicant has alleged dual standards on the part of the respondents.
8. The respondents state that the applicant cannot take the plea that hundreds of persons appear in his office for attestation of their documents and photographs. According to the respondents, this is a frivolous plea and they have rightly held him guilty of negligence and inflicted the punishment. No procedural inadequacies have been pointed out by the applicant and, therefore, the OA deserves to be dismissed.
9. During the course of arguments from both sides, it became clear that there are no written instructions on how a Tehsilar is expected to attest photographs and documents. Naturally the officer has several such cases put before him every day apart from tremendous pressure of work at the level at which he operates in the hierarchy. He is expected to take steps as a normal prudent person would take while attesting and the applicant did that. He relied on the Pradhan and the GPA issued before he attested the photograph of the person viz. Shri Arif. At that time, he had no knowledge that Arif was a terrorist. In any case, the charge sheet also does not suggest that he helped Shri Arif knowing him to be a terrorist. Moreover, based on his attestation the two officers of the Food and Supplies issued the Ration Card whereas these officers were expected to verify each and every detail before issuing the Ration Card, which they failed to do. The respondents went ahead and exonerated these two persons, who in our view, were more liable for such lapse. It is also a fact as pointed out, that the Lt. Governor in his order has relied on incorrect facts which must have been placed before him by the respondents. It is an unfortunate situation that a terrorist had been able to obtain a Ration Card due to the lack of alertness of Food and Supplies Department but the applicant cannot be held responsible for the lapse given the facts.
10. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in the OA and, therefore, quash the orders dated 25.09.2012 passed by the learned Lt. Governor and order dated 24.11.2009 passed by the Chief Secretary. No costs.
( P.K. Basu ) ( V. Ajay Kumar ) Member (A) Member (J) /dkm/