Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
T.M. Sampath vs The Union Minister Of Water Resources on 11 August, 2008
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.648/2008 New Delhi this the 11th day of August, 2008. Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) T.M. Sampath, Administrative Officer, National water Development Agency, Flat No.213, Palika Bhawan, New Delhi-110066. -Applicant (Applicant in person) -Versus- 1. The Union Minister of Water Resources and Appellate Authority, Ministry of Water Resources, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India & Disciplinary Authority, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 3. The Director General, National Water Development Agency, 18-20 Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017. -Respondents (By Advocate Shri M.M. Sudan) O R D E R (ORAL)
Principles of natural justice can never be put in a straightjacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. What is paramount on violation is the prejudice caused to the concerned, which deprives one a reasonable opportunity, in turn infraction to the cardinal principles of audi alteram partem.
2. In the above backdrop, the applicant, who states himself to be a whistle blower, by virtue of this OA has assailed an order passed by the disciplinary authority (DA) on 26.7.2004, whereby in pursuance of a minor penalty chargesheet under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and on representation of applicant a minor penalty of censure has been inflicted upon him by the Secretary to the Government of India as a DA. Also assailed is an order passed in appeal on 28.3.2005, whereby the penalty has been upheld.
3. The allegations against the applicant as reflected in the minor penalty chargesheet issued to him under Rule 16 ibid are non-reporting of loan and also habitual indebtedness, which in turn is an infraction to Rule 18 (3) and 17 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
4. In response to the minor penalty chargesheet applicant preferred a self contained representation, whereby insofar as one of the charges of taking loan from the Bank of an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 30.10.2001 and not intimating the same within a period of one month as stipulated under Rule 18 (3) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, a justification has been tendered that the Director (Admn.) vide OM dated 1.10.2002 though finding the explanation of the applicant not satisfactory, yet warned him to be careful in future, which amounts to condonation of the above allegation and on which applicant in person asserts that no enquiry can be conducted.
5. It is also stated that an enquiry as per Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 having not been conducted by the DA, is violative of Rule 16 (1)(b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as well as the instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
6. Lastly, it is stated that the above punishment has been inflicted upon him only because he is a whistle blower to mar his future prospects of promotion.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel of respondents has vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that the applicant having admitted taking a loan of Rs.50,000/- and not reporting the same to the competent authority within the stipulated period as prescribed under Rule 18 (3) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 since admitted the misconduct, the punishment imposed upon him only on this count is justifiable. For other heads of charges leveled against applicant, it is stated that applicant has also failed to reasonably explain or justify his alleged misconduct for which a detailed order passed by the DA when affirmed by the appellate authority does not suffer from any legal infirmity of procedure and the punishment is commensurate with the misconduct.
8. Lastly, it is contended that the Note written by the Director (Admn.) who is not the DA of applicant, by no stretch, is condonation of misconduct, for which the DA, i.e., Secretary is competent to proceed him and punish, which cannot be found fault with.
9. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, it is trite that an admission, unequivocal, absolute and unconditional, made during the course of enquiry, whether it is a minor penalty or major penalty proceedings is a valid piece of evidence, which is to be acted upon, applying the principle of preponderance of probability in disciplinary proceedings.
10. Moreover, applicant having failed to give any proof of his having intimated the respondents as to borrowing of an amount of Rs.50,000/- and his seeking pardon, admitting the misconduct, the Note dated 1.10.2002 of the Director (Admn.) who is not the DA has, first of all not found the explanation tendered by applicant as satisfactory, and maintaining his misconduct, when warned him to be careful in future, the order cannot be construed as has been either passed by the DA or condoning his misconduct. Accordingly, without going into the other charges the charge of borrowing of Rs.50,000/- and not intimating it within a period of one month, as prescribed under Rule 18 (3) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, is certainly a misconduct within the meaning of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, for which the penalty imposed upon applicant is not only legal, but also, commensurate with his misconduct.
11. As regards non-holding of enquiry, a prejudice would be caused only when a request is made by the concerned and if enquiry is not held and no reasons have been recorded by the DA, only then it has to be construed that this is an infraction of Rule 15 (1)(b) of the Rules ibid. From the perusal of his explanation, as no request for holding of an enquiry is made by applicant and rather his act of admitting his misconduct, this point fails.
12. Resultantly, OA is found devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
(Shanker Raju) Member (J) San.