Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Suresh Bapurao Patre vs M/O Finance on 12 June, 2024
i Od No sOsi20l?
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAL CAMP AT NAGPUR,
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.308/2017
al N : d "ye
° wae 28,8 A Suk Hage 44 fing Eg Reve, UG
Date this Lathe Jc day of Jats, 2004.
CORAM: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member {])
Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Suresh S/o Bapurao Patre,
Aged about 60 years, Occ: Retd.
R/at Plt No.33, Kolte Layout, Near
Collector Colony, (Prashant Nagar),
Godhani Railway, Nagpur 441 111. . Appleant
(By Advocate Mrs. Rashi Deshpande)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services),
Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street,
New Delhi 110 001.
2 The Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal,
B Block, 2" Floor, CGO Complex, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur 440 006.
3. Shri Chikkam Vijay Mchan,
The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery
Tribunal, B Block, 2" Floor, CGO Complex,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440006... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri R.A. Gupte )
Reserved on :17" January, 2024.
Pronounced on: jo ® Tune, 2024.
2 O4 Na 3082017
ORDER
Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (7) By this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1984, the applicant is seeking the relief of quashing the Charge Memorandum dated 17" April, 2017.
2. The facts in nutshell are that:
24 The applicant was appointed as Junior Clerk in District Court. He was promoted as Steno/Clerk in lower grade in June 1991. The applicant was sent on deputation in Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) on the post of Private Secretary on 1% August 2001. He was absorbed in DRT, Nagpur on 34 December, 2002. He retired on superannuation on 30" April, 2024. The applicant has an unblemished record.
He worked to the satisfaction of his superiors. The applicant was served with Office Memorandum (show cause notice) dated 24° March, 2017 by which allegations were made against him as under:
3 OA No, 308/201 7 } Firstly, he was directed to take printout of the orders and to give it to the Presiding Officer well in advance for enabling the PO to make corrections and to pronounce the gave orders in OA No. 99/2016 in the last minute on gard March, 2017 as a result of which the said order could not te be corrected on 23 March 2017 and the Presenting Officer was forced to post case to some other date.
i} Secondly, he was directed to improve the quality of typing ark not to commit spelling mistakes. But in the interim order dated 20% March, 2017, he typed "interim say"
instead of "interim stay". This true copy was also issued to the applicant and the applicant showed it to the Bank and the Bank did not accept that order as the word "interim stay" was not mentioned. With the result, that the party and his advocate was forced to fle one amendment application on 23"
March, 2017 on which the PO was forced to pass order to correct the mistake in the order dated 20" March, 2017 typed by the applicant.
ii) Thirdly, it is observed that the applicant had been coming late to the office after prescribed time and in the surprise check on 22" March, 2017, the applicant had the Court hall by utilizing the services of Mr. D.T. Girtdhar, Steno 'C'. At about 12.00 noon, when the PO asked applicant about late coming in the court hall, the applicant proclaimed that he was on the stage of retirement and that he was entitled to come late and even he was asked to leave the dais, he arrogantly replied that he would not leave the dais unless the PO gives some dictations. In that way, the applicant disturbed the decency, dignity and decorum of the court in the presence of the others.
iv) Pourthly, as a Private Secretary, he was forwarded the phone calls to the PO and the persons who tried to contact PO on the landline phone number are complaining that the applicant was answering their calls in discourteous manner and asking irrelevant questions. Such instances happened on 21" and 22™ March, 2017 also. He was strictly instructed not 5 Od No. 3082017 to be discourteous to the callers and to forward the calls directly Hl making necessary arrangement to see to it that the PO receives the calls directely without his intervention. Even though there is no electricity as ESNL landline phones will work irrespective of the availability of electicity. He was asked to give explanation. The applicant gave the explanation. In the explanation, he stated that on enquiry, he replied that was wife ws suffering from some ailments and also told that due to ageing factor he is suffering from physical problems. He said that he was available for dictation. The Presiding Officer asked him to leave dais and he sincerely obeyed his orders. The Presiding Officer advised him to take leave instead of coming late and take treatment from CGHS.
2.2. It is further alleged that on 29% March 2017, respondent no. once again issued an OM dated 29° March 2017 and again called upon the applicant to explain why he should not be demoted to the lower cadre post. The applicant submitted his explanation on OI" April, 2017 to the Office Memorandum dated 29° March, 2017 and contended that in 6 O4 No.308/2017 view of the age of superannuation and looking to the unblemished past service record, he requested to excuse his unintentional lapses and not to put him to financial losses at 2.3. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 issued Charge Memorandum dated 17" April, 2017 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and four charges were levelled against him, They are as under:-
"1. That, you are working in DRT, Nagpur on the post of Private Secretary and attached to Hon'ble Presiding Officer and when you were directed to take print out of the orders and to give it to the Presiding Officer well in advance in order to enable the Presiding Officer to make corrections before pronouncing the orders, you did not follow the instructions properly.
2. Despite directions to improve the quality of typing and not to conunit spelling mistakes, you continued to work carelessly causing inconvenience to Hon'ble Presiding Officer and litigants, as also loss of valuable Hime.
3. You are in the habit of coming late in office, besides you are also not following decency, dignity and decorum in dealing with your superior. You were arrogant in giving reply to oral queries made by your superior and indulged in the act of insubordination. This has resulted in disturbance and harepering of work.
moh OA No. 3082017 -
You are discourteous fo the callers on office felephone and ask urelevant and wnnecessary questions fo them. As private secretary you are supposed to ebserve proper profecol while forwarding the calls receive di by Hon'ble Presiding Officer through you. This nas resulied in denting the tage of our office at large.
2.4. _ Applicant filed written submission on 27" April, 2017 to the aforesaid Charge Memorandum issued by respondent no3. The applicant contended that the respondent no.3 without taking any decision on the earlier Office Memorandum dated 24" March, 2017 and 29% March, 2017 issued the instant Charge Memorandum dated 17" April, 2017 and, therefore, the same is highly illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. He further contended that the action of the respondent no.3 is prejudicial and vindictive towards the applicant as the proceedings were initiated as the Presiding Officer was biased against the applicant.
2.5 The applicant retired on 30° April 2017, On 3rd May 2017, the applicant made an application that as per Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, that since the charges are trival and do not amount to grave misconduct they should be dropped.
8 OA Ne. 3082017 Since the respondents did not withdraw the charges, the applicant has filed this OA.
denied all the allegations. They contended that the applicant gave explanation on 29" March, 2017 to the show cause notice. The applicant was immediately informed vide Office Memorandum dated 29" March, 2017 that his performance was unsatisfactory. It has contended that the work of Presiding Officer, DRT, Nagpur is of highly sensitive nature and the role of a stenographer is a very important role, since several sensitive orders involving matters with crores of rupees of public money are to be passed by the Presiding Officer on a daily basis and routine stay order is also issued by the said authority. If the stenographer commits such frequent and grave mistakes, it is bound to seriously hamper the work of Presiding Officer, DRT, Nagpur. In the explanation, grounds raised by the applicant were that he was suffering from hearing problem, that the applicant had reached advanced stage and is suffering from ill health. The applicant 9 Od No.308/2017 repeatedly failed to give the transcrips in time as a result of which the Presiding Officer of DRT, Nagpur could not get sufficient time for correcting the draft copies and same thing sappened as regards the order in OA No.99/2016. The Presiding Officer of the DRT was expecting the typed copy of order sufficiently in time in OA No.99/2016. However, the same was not provided by the applicant. The charge nos.3 & 4 reveal misconduct committed by the applicant. Therefore, it carmot be said that the charges are of trival nature and it is a case of lack of efficiency and not misconduct. The charge nos.3 and 4 reveal that the applicant was a habitual late comer to the office and was so casual that he would come to the office after Presiding Officer of the DRT, Nagpur assume the dais,
3. On 22" March 2017, the applicant arrived late as usual. By that time, the Court work had already started by availing services of a Stenographer Grade 'C' by the name of D.T. Giridhar. After DT. Giridhar left the dais, the applicant occupied the single chair on the dais. When the applicant was 10 OA No. 308/2017 directed to leave the dais for his late coming, the applicant, without any regard to the discipline and decorum of the court in an unnecessary and stubborn manner insisted that the refused to leave the single chair on the dais in spite of repeated direction of the Presiding Officer, DRT, Nagpur. The court proceedings had stalled for some time. Thus, he created embarrassing situation during the court proceedings. He left the chair on the dais only after Shri Govind V Pantaone, Stenographer Grade 'C' came to the dais and waited to occupy the single chair on the dais to attend to the work of stenographic assistance to the Presiding Officer, DRT, Nagpur for his turn. Then only, the applicant reluctantly vacated the single chair on the dais. This amounts to disturbing the court proceedings and hence it is a case of gross insubordination, Hence, the applicant is guilty of insubordination. The applicant was working as Private Secretary to Presiding Officer, DRT, Nagpur and if he did not attend the telephone calls with strict regard to decency and decorum, it is a gross misconduct.
i Od No. sos al?
a. Respondent no Sled his written statement. Respondent no.3 has been added by the applicant by name.
He contended that respondent no3 is the Disciplinary and not by post which respondent no.3 is occupying, There is no cause of action for the applicant to implead respondent nad by name. The applicant has not allezed anywhere in his application that respondent no.3 has any bias against the applicant and had mala fide intention to punish him. He contended that the applicant did not do his duty properly. Though the judgment in OA 99/2016 was delivered on 23 March, 2017 itself because of the delay and not following the repeated orders of respondent no.3 properly which resulted in respondent no.3 staying in the office beyond office hours for signing the judgment. The applicant misbehaved with the Presiding Officer on the dais and refused to follow his directions when respondent no. 3 asked the applicant to leave the dais. He said unless respondent no.3 gives some dictation | he would not leave the dais. Thus, before all litigants and lawyers, the applicant misbehaved with the Presiding Officer 12 O4 No. 308/2017 on the dais which put the respondent no.3 in embarrassing position. In order dated 20° March 2017, the applicant had typed "interim say" instead of "interim stay". This resulted im prelerring one amendment application by the concerned Advocate on 23 March, 2017 and the Presiding Officer was forced to pass order to correct the said mistake. Thus, the applicant was careless in doing his duty and was adamant in his behaviour. He contended that the charges levelled against the applicant are specific and make out the misconduct.
5. The applicant has not filed rejoinder.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel, Smt. Deshpande, submitted that the applicant was served with the chargesheet when the applicant was in service. The appliant retired on 30" April, 2017. Therefore, the inquiry initiated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) rules got converted into Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules. She suibmitted that in terms of CCS (Pension) Rules, the inquiry can be continued only if there is grave misconduct 3 O4 No.308/2017 and negligence on the part of the charged officer. In the case at hand, the charges against the applicant are of trival nature. The first charge is that he did not follow the instructions properly of giving the print out of orders dictated to him in order to enable the Presiding Officer to make corrections. The second charge is that he committed typing mistakes, spelling viistakes despite directions him to improve his performance and thereby showed carelessness causing inconvenience to the Presiding Officer. The thrid charge is that he was in habit of coming late in office, he was not following decency, dignity and decorum in dealing with his superiors, He was arrogant in giving reply to oral queries made by his superiors and indulged in the act of insubordination. Fourth charge is he was discourteous to the callers on office telephone and ask unnecessary questions to the callers. She submitted that all these charges are of trival nature and they do not amount to grave misconduct so as to continue the inquiry under Rule 9 of CCS (CCA) Rules.
i OA No.308/2017&. She submitted that the chargesheet is signed by the Disciplinary Authority who himself has lodged the report. She submitted that no one can be judge of his own cause. For this purpose, she placed reliance on the case of Shel Arius:
Chaubey Vs, Union of India, 1984 DGLS(SC) 86. She further submitted that mere inefficiency could not amount to misconduct. There has to be transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour. She submitted that 'misconduct! is not capable of precise definition. It means delinquency in performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. The charges levelled against the applicant do not amount to lack of devation of duty, discourteous conduct or insubordination. For this purpose, she placed reliance on the following case laws:
"1. Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. SC (Civil Appeal No.1815/2007), --
2. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad & Ors, (2012) 4 SCC 407,
3. D.V. Kapoor Vs, Union of India, 1990 DGLS (SC) 394.18 Od No.308/2017
. Linton of India & Ors. Vs, Ram Karan Sharma, WVP(C) Ni 78952 2009",
9. Learned counsel for the applicant further ¢ submitted that the Disciplinary Authority had made up h a him notice calling upon the applicant as to why he should not be reverted. She submitted that this clearly shows that the respondent no.3 had bias against the applicant on account of have been framed.
$53 yeh ¢ on fA breed which the charges on frivolous ¢
10. Learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Gupte, submitted that the respondents committed a grave misconduct, He submitted that the ap plicant was in the habit of coming late to the office. On the date of the incident, the applicant came late in the office ie. 12 noon. By that time, the Presiding Officer, respondent no3 had started his work. The applicant : came on dais. Respondent no.3 asked the applicant as to why he came late upon which the applicant replied in the most arrogant manner that he was due for retirement anc he was entitled to come late. When the Presiding Officer asked him to leave the dais, the applicant refused to do so.
16 O4 No 3082017 This itself is indicative of the fact that this was not only an act of insubordination but in open court in full public glare the applicant replied in most arrogant manner that he was entitled to come late as he was due for retirement. Therefore, the charges framed against the applicant are proper. They indicate that there is grave misconduct and, therefore, the charge-sheet does not deserve to be quashed.
- 11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for their respective parties.
72. The applicant was initially issued a show cause notice. The show cause notice indicates that on 22°? March, 2017 he attended office late though Presiding Officer started work in the court hall by utilizing the services of Mr. D.T. Giridhar, Steno Grade 'C'. At about 12 noon, applicant came on dais, the PO asked the applicant about late coming is the court, the applicant replied that he was on the verge of retirement and that he was entitled to come late and when he was asked to leave the dais, he arrogantly replied that he 17 Od No. 308/20) would not leave the dais unless the PO gives some dictation, We have extracted the above charges levelled against the
-- an applicant.
£ aOR A 3 hey oN Sa eg ee : Poe SRE ay 4 Beene} hy oy aay Acmittediy , MATY Was Iiared ASAINST IMS we oe applicant when he was in service by serving Charge Memorandim on the applicant on 17" April, 2017. The applicant retired on 30° April, 2017. The inquiry initiated under Rule 14 of. the CCS (CCA) rules gets converted into Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) rules. Rule 9 () & (2) of CCS (Pension) rule reads thus:
"S(1) The President reserves to himself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole er part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the --_ pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of Service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement:
Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed:
Provided further that where a part of pension i withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such eh ine io pensions shall not be reduced below the amount of (Rupees Three thousand five hundred) per mensent.|
2) (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant wis in service whether before his velirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were comtmenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service:
Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the President, that authority shall submit a report recording tts findings to the President".
14. The wording of this rule clearly indicate that the inquiry initiated during service can be continued against the employee on his retirement if the charge against the applicant is of grave misconduct or negligence. Explanation (a) & {b) appended to Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules reads thus:-
"8. Pension subject to future good conduct cee ee ee ee ee we bo he * oe ee ee | ;
He Explanation:
vr (Eh) cv ceerenen eneseecsrrecsens 19 Od No 308/201 7 (b} the expression 'grave misconduct' includes ihe communication er disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, artilce, note, document or information, such as mentioned in Section 5 of * the Official Secrets Act, 182509 of 1923), (which was obtained wwilile holding office under the Government) so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the general public or the security of the State,"
18. For finding out what is grave misconduct, it will is have to be first seen what amounts to misconduct. In the case of D.V. Kapoor (supra), Supreme Court held that the condition precedent thereto is that there should be a finding that the deliquent is guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of public duty in office, as defined in Rule 8(5), explanation (b) which is an inclusive definition, ie. the scope is wide of mark dependent on the facts or circumstances in a given case. In the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoiy (supra), it is held thus:
'wii, Misconduct has been defined in Black's Lew Dictionary, 6° Edition as> "A transgression of some established ' and definite rule of action, a Jorbidden ack a dereliction from duty, unlawyid behavior, wilfkl in character pRpPopeEr ay wrong behavior its SHHanyes are misdemeanor moseed misbehavior gel ind RENCY, imipranrieny HUSTHANA SEMEN offence dat por negligence or carelessness " .
NS Wee 20 Od No.3 08/2017 Misconduct in office has been defined as:
"dny unlawful behavior by a public afficer in relation to the duties of his office, wilful in character. Term embraces acis which the office hoider had mo right to perfarm, acts performed improperly, and fuilure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act."
i2. Remanatha Aivar's Law Lexicon, Reprint Edn [987 at page 821 defines 'misconduct' thus:
"The term misconduct implies a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment. Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude. The word misconduct is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scape of the Act or statute which is being construed. Misconduct Hterally means wrong conduct er improper conduet in usual parlance, misconduct means a transeression. of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is lef, except what necessity may demand and carelessness, negligence and unskilfulness are transgressions of some established, but indefinite, rule of action, where some discretion is necessarily lef? to the actor. Afisconduct is a violation of definite law; carelessness or abuse of discretion under an indefinite law. Misconduct is a forbidden act, carelessness, a forbidden quality of an act, and is necessarily indefinite. Misconduct in office may be defined as unlawful behaviour or neglect by a public officer. by which the rights of a party have been affected, Thus @ could be seen that the word 'misconduct' though not capable of precise definition. on reflection receives its cormotation fom the context. the delinquency In Ns "performance and its effeet on the discipline and 'the nature of the duty dt may involve poral curpitude, & must be improper or wrong hehaviowr; antewfid behaviour, wilf' in £ an 24 Od No 3082017 character; forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of judgement carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty; fhe act complained of bears forbidden quality ay character. fis ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being had ig the scope of the statute and the public purpose if seeks to serve."
i3. Mere error of judgment resulting in doing of negligent act dees not amount te misconduct. However, in exceptional circumstances, not working diligently may be a misconduct. An action which is detrimental to the prestige of the institution may alsa amount to misconduct, Acting beyond authority may be a misconduct. When the offlce-bearer is expected ta act wih absolute integrity and honesty in handling the work, any misappropriation, even temporary, of the Jimds, etc. constitutes a serious misconduct invinig severe punishment. (Vide Disciplinary Authority-cum- Regi. Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, Govt. of TN. ¥ ALN, Ramamurthy, Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and SBI y. SN. Goyal.}".
16, It is further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) thus:
"20. The expression "disgraceful conduct' is not defined in the statute. Therefore, the same has to he understood in given dictianary meaning. The term 'disgrace' signifies loss of honor, respect, or reputation, shame or bring disfavour or discredit. Diseracefidl means giving offence ta maral sensibilities and infurious to reputation or conduct or character deserving or bringing diserace ar shame. Disgracefiul conduct is also ta be examined from the context in which the term has been emploved under the statute. Disgraceful conduct need not necessarily be connected with the official of the office bearer Therefore, if may be outside the ambit of discharge of tus afficial dary."
CO 22 OA No 308/201 F i? The same principle has been laid down in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. J. Alyned, (1979) 2 SCC 286 and Inspector Prem: Chand (supra). The first charge is that the applicant was directed to take print outof the orders and give to the Presiding Officer well in advance in order to enable the PO to make corrections before pronouncing the orders and he did not follow the instructions properly. Second charge is that despite directions, he did not improve the quality of typing and continued to commit spelling mistakes. Fourth charge is that he was discourteous to the callers on office telephone and asked irrelevant and unnecessary questions to them. For quashing the chargehseet what the Tribunal has to see is whether on mere reading the charge a misconduct is made out. If on mere reading of the chargesheet, if no misconduct is made out, if no charge is made out, the chargesheet will have to be quashed. It is settled law that chargesheet can be quashed on the ground that charges are vague and on bare reading of the charge no misconduct is made out, Gd Ne 3O8/20) F 3 tad Pe ie a On the basis of this principle, it will have to be een whether the applicant has been guilty of misconduct.
Yhe charges 1,2 & 4 are of trival nature and cannto be said to oe be of grave misconduct, So far as the charge that he had typed the words "interim say" instead of "interim stay" is also trival becasue the PO also did not notice this mistake and signed the order. This mistake was noticed only when amendment applications was fled. Therefofe, this mistake nas fo be treated as human error. As indicated above, human error or lack of efficiency cannot be called a misconduct.
Therefore, this charge is also of a trival nature.
18. So far as charge no.3 is concerned, it has been alleged against the applicant that he was in the habit of coming late to the office and when he was asked as to why he came late, he replied in arrogant manner and when he was asked to leave the dais, he refused to leave stating that the PO should give him dication and till dictation is not given he will not leave the dais. Thus, this act of the applicant amounts to 24 OA No. 3082017 insubordination. Needless to say insubordination is an act of grave misconduct.
20. The question is what will amount to grave misconduct has been answered by the Delhi High Court in the Z& BSR E case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dr. V.T. Prabhakaran, (2010) 171 DLT 556(DB): 2010 SCC online Del 2478. It has held thus:
44082. Having understood what misconduct is, it becomes easy to understand what a grave misconduct would be. It has to be the aggravated form of misconduct.
33, Acts of moral turpitude, acts of dishonesty, bribery and corruption would obviously be an aggravated form of misconduct because of not only the morally depraving nature of the act but even the reason that they would be attracting the penal laws. There would be no problem in understanding the gravity of such kind of offences. But that would not mean that only such kind of indictments would be a grave misconduct. A ready exaneple to which everybody would agree with as a case of grave misconduct, but within the realm of failure to maintain devotion to duty, would be where a fireman sleeps in the fire office and does not 25 GA No 3082017 respond to an emergency call of fire in a building which ullimately results in the death of 10 persons.
There is no dishonesty. There is no acceptance of bribe, There is no corruption. There is no moral failure fo matniain devotion to duty is not of a y grave kind, Re x ldohe <ofSaahe saggh 9 'rait fack S&. EE would be dificult fo put in a strait jacket Cameaga tat Pea fe sy hoe ger et oo "y otal Oy fornia as fo that kinds of acts sans moral mle, dishoneshy, bribery and corruption mould constifiete evane susconduct but reat WOM COMSTINTE STARE TLISCORE uch, but a rea tearlieteaste gaesdd the siliae t ti gyate : af foucksione would be where the "integrity to the evyesecs ft S97 de SaTHT Ce : - O4F pas de :
aevonon fo enuty' is nussing and the "lack of lisa de 2 eye resend gta un ahi } r devotion' is gross aud culpable if would be a case of grave vusconduct. The issue needs a little Pees credoant by pt aee Faso eres Cerna eye The Every concept has a core value and a fringe value.
of 3 ORG Pa ows so pee Tyee Se: ER, 3H SNlay, every euby has a core and a fringe. TA Myertesyoe ge at €h "eer yp yk aes Poh YVagigver is af fre core of a duty would be the would not be Nie ontegrity of the duty but may be iniegral fo ihe duty. It is in reference to this metaphysical concept that mottos are chosen by organizations. For example in the fire department the appropriate motto would be: ''Be always alert'. It would be so for the reason the integrity of the duty of a fire officer i.e. the core value of his work 26 Od No. 308/201 7 would be to be "always alert''. Similarly, for a doctor the core value of his work would be 'duty to the extra vigilant''. Thus, where a doctor conducts four operations one after the other and in between goes not wash his hands and change the gloves resulting in the three subsequent patients contacting the disease of the first, notwithstanding there being no moral turpitude invelved or corruption or bribery, the doctor would be guilty of a grave misconduct as his act has breached the core value of his duty. The example of the fireman given by us is self explanatory with reference to the core value of the duty of a fireman to be 'always alert'.
21. Thus, the act of giving arrogant reply is certainly a misconduct. Similarly, the act of not leaving dais when he we was directed to do so in open courtse has not been obeyed by the applicant is also a misconduct. Only during the inquiry, it will be clear whether it is a grave misconduct or not. Therefore, charge to the extent of charge no.3 cannot be said to be of a trival nature. In this view of the matter, though the charges at item nos,], 2 & 4 are misconduct, they cannot be called a grave misconduct so as to continue the inquiry after retirement.
at BA No 3082017 2a. Reliance placed on the case of Arjun Chaubey (supra) is misplaced as in that case the Superintendent was the Disciplinary Authority, who had issued the delinquent a < - - * se zn % x . ¢ a? ' By 2K SOAS See Re Ser aS oie Fact Rae) seas SR AK y en Pe a Ne ae bees Ares SSUW CUSe NOMS, Oe Tound Enat axnlianaton untrue and pronounced the delinquent guilty and dismissed him fom service, Therefore, the Supreme Court held that no one can be a judge of his own cause. This decision has no application to the case at hand as Disciplinary Authority has initiated departmental inquiry and has not passed any punishment order. Subsequent developments show that the Disciplinary Authority has retried from service.
23. The case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ramkaran Sharma (Delhi High Court) WP(C) No.7895/2009 is also not applicable because there were no allegations amounting to Brave misconduct. In the case at hand as indicated earlier allegations constitute grave misconduct.
24. In this view of the matter, charge-sheet to the extent of charges at item nos.1,2 & 4 stand quashed. Inquiry to proceed in respect of charge no.3.
28 OA No.308/201725. In view of this, OA is partly allowed. Pending MAs, if any, also stand closed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there (Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice M.G. Sewlikar) Member (A) | Member (PD can.