Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Korada Sreenivasa Rao vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 9 September, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA 922/2011 New Delhi, this the 9th day of September, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. R. C. Panda, Member (A) Korada Sreenivasa Rao S/o Shri Korada Paidithalli, R/o 390-A, Chirag Delhi New Delhi 110 017. Applicant (Applicant in person) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, Ministry of Science and Technology, Technology Bhawan, New Delhi-110 016. 2. Shri Vibhu Rashmi, Ex. Scientist-G & In-charge (HoD), Ministry of Science and Technology, 51, Gautam Apartments, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi 110 049. 3. A.K. Taneja Under Secretary to Govt. of India, DSIR, Ministry of Science and Technology Technology Bhawan, New Delhi.-110 016. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. D.S. Mahendru) ORDER (ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:
Sequel to regular departmental enquiry held against the applicant under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the applicant has been removed from service vide orders dated 22.02.2011. There would be no need to give facts in detail in the context of limited controversy that has been raised by the applicant, who appears in person, at this stage. Suffice it may, however, to mention that initially there were six articles of charge against the applicant, but article of charge-I was deleted pursuant to orders passed by the High Court. He was thus put to departmental enquiry on five charges. Articles of Charge-II to VI, on which the applicant was departmentally tried, read as follows:-
Article-II That the said Shri Korada Srinivassa Rao while functioning as Scientist C in DSIR during the period from 1st January 2000 to 5th March, 2004 committed misconduct inasmuch as that when he was looking after the work of PATSER/TATT Division, received personally without any authority an application in the month of October 2001 of M/s. Vibha Agrotech Limited, Hyderabad, for recognition of in-house R&D unit and deliberately did not hand over the said application to the concerned authority/officer in the Department for further processing. Thus, Shri Korada Srinivasa Rao failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i)&(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-III That the said Shri Korada Srinivassa Rao while functioning as Scientist C, during the period from 1st January 2000 to 5th March, 2004 committed misconduct inasmuch as he, after catching hold of their applications, telephoned to M/s. Vibha Agrotech Limited, Hyderabad, informing them about the inspection of their premises by a team of officers from the Department without any authority or approval. Thereafter, he alone visited the said company again without any authority/permission from the competent authority and acknowledged their hospitality through his. D.O. letter dated 08.01.2002. Therefore, he failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i)&(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-IV That the said Shri Korada Srinivassa Rao while functioning as Scientist C during the period from 1st January 2000 to 5th March, 2004 committed misconduct inasmuch as he, unauthorizedly caused a letter of recognition to be issued to M/s. Vibha Agrotech Limited, Hyderabad on 7 March, 2002 by forging the signature of the competent officer. Thus the said Sh. Korada Srinivasa Rao failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i)&(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-V That the said Shri Korada Srinivassa Rao while functioning as Scientist C during the period from 1st January 2000 to 5th March, 2004 committed misconduct inasmuch as he received personally (from Dr. S.K. Chandel of the Company on 25th February, 2004) without any authority the renewal application dated 21.02.204 of M/s. Vibha Agrotech Limited, Hyderabad for renewal of recognition of in-house R&D unit addressed to Dr. Natarajan of this Department and acknowledged the same. He also did not hand over the same to Dr. Natarajan, Scientist G or to any other officer in the RDI Division for further action in the Department. His unauthorized and illegal receipt of communication addressed to another officer by name and his retaining it confirms his involvement in the issue of forged letter to M/s. Vibha Agrotech Pvt. Ltd., earlier and reveals his design to commit the same crime of issuing forged letter of renewal of recognition to the Company. Shri Korada Srinivasa Rao failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i)&(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-VI That the said Shri Korada Srinivassa Rao while functioning as Scientist C during the period from 1st January 2000 to 5th March, 2004 committed misconduct inasmuch as he unauthorizedly possessed the missing original file of the RDI Division on recognition of In-house R&D Unit of Sankalp Seeds Company Pvt. Ltd., while he was not working in the Division. He had earlier met the representative of the Company, Shri Bale while the latter had come to hand over their applications for grant of recognition as in-house R&D Unit. He caused a letter of recognition to be issued to M/s. Sankalp Seeds Company Private Limited, Jalna on 11 June 2003 by forging the signature of the competent officer. He prepared the envelope that contained the forged recognition letter, wrote file Number twice on the envelope in his own handwriting; personally dispatched the letter through registered post through registration No.3756 dated 21.07.2003 though the letter was dated 11th June, 2003. Thereby, the said Shri Korada Srinivasa Rao failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i)&(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
2. Insofar as enquiry officer is concerned, the applicant was held guilty of charges no. 2, 3, & 5, whereas he was exonerated of the charges no.4 & 6. When the report of the enquiry officer came before the disciplinary authority, it disagreed with the enquiry officer as regards charges no.4 & 6 and held the applicant guilty with regard to the allegations made therein. We may reproduce the entire order of dissenting note as based on said note only the limited controversy has been raised by the applicant. The same reads as follows:-
In respect of the Article of Charge IV regarding Shri Korada Srinivasa Raos signature of the competent officer on the recognition letter dated 07.03.02, it is seen from the GEQD report that the signatures on the three letters dated 07.03.02, 03.03.04 and 11.06.03, marked Q1, Q2 and Q3 are not those of Shri Jagdish Singh, the Scientist who was competent to sign these letters. GEQDs report is also explicit that the date 03.02.04, below the signature on the letter marked Q2, was written by Shri Korada Srinivasa Rao. This and the fact that a photocopy of the said recognition letter dated 07.03.02 was recovered from the Office of Shri Korada Srinivasa Rao amply reflect on his integrity and indicate malafide on his part.
The defence had no objection to calling Shri NC Sood, the Dy. GEQD, as a witness and I.A. had opined that it would be premature for the CO to presume that the opinion signed by Shri Sood is without any reasoning. As for Shri Sood, though he could not present himself as he was not well, but his absence does not mean that he had disparaged his opinion and reasoning given in the GEQD report. Hence the GEQDs report stands.
In the light of this, the inquiring Authoritys contention that no evidentiary value can be given to GEQD opinion as its author failed to appear in this inquiry is not acceptable. Therefore, on the preponderance of probability based on the aforesaid evidence, the charge of forgery attributed to Shri Korada Srinivasa Rao is established.
In the Article VI of charge regarding Shri Korada Srinivasa Raos forging the signature of the competent officer on the letter of recognition dated 11.06.03 and preparing the envelope with registration No.3756 dated 21.07.03 and dispatching it, the inquiring Authority has based his finding of not sustaining the charge on similar grounds as in Charge-IV above. The Inquiring Authority has taken cognizance of the fact that the signature on the recognition letter dated 11.06.03 (marked Q3) is not that of Shri Jagdish Singh, Scientist and yet says that there is no evidence to indicate that this signature has been made by Shri Korada Srinivasa Rao.
Nevertheless, in view of the position in the preceding paras and the fact that GEQDs report is definitive in that, the signatures on the above three letters dated 07.03.02, 03.02.04 and 11.06.03 marked Q1, Q2 and Q3, are not those of Shri Jagdish Singh and the date 03.02.04 below the signature of the letter dated 03.02.04 marked as Q2, as well as the writings marked Q4 and Q5 (on the envelope bearing registration No.3756 dated 21.07.03 also marked Exh. P-8)were written by Shri Korada Srinivasa Rao, the charge of forging the signature on the letter dated 11.06.03 and its dispatch is established. Hence this charge also stands.
3. Perusal of the dissenting note would manifest beyond doubt that the disciplinary authority has pre-judged the issue by holding the applicant guilty finally and by no means it could be called to be a tentative dissenting note.
4. In the scenario, as mentioned above, the representation of the applicant against these two charges would have been of no consequence. It is settled position of law that dissenting note even though may give reasons for disagreement but the same have to be tentative. The dissenting note, therefore, needs to be set aside. In consequence of that, the order removing the applicant shall also have to be set aside. We order accordingly of course with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the applicant from the stage of receipt of enquiry report by the disciplinary authority. The applicant would be reinstated in service, but insofar as the consequential benefits are concerned, they will abide by the final decision. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. R. C. Panda) (V.K. Bali)
Member (A) Chairman
/naresh/