Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kamal Kishore Sharma vs Ministry Of Jal Shakti on 29 May, 2023
Item 30
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2680/2021
No.
Reserved on :10.05
10.05.2023
Pronounced on :29.05.2023
29.05.2023
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Sh. Kamal Kishore Sharma,
S/o Lt. Shri Raj Kishore Sharma
Aged about 46 Yrs,
Assistant Accounts Officer,
Ministry of Water Resources
Sewa Bhawan, RK Puram, New Delhi-110066.
Delhi 066.
...Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri Parthiv K.Goswami, Sr. Advocate with
Shri Rahul Pratap)
Pratap
Versus
1. Ministry of Jal Shakti
Department of water Resources River
Development & Ganga Rerjuvenation
Principal Account Office
C-Wing,
Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
Delhi 110001.
Through Shri Praveen Nandwana,
Nand
Jt. Controller General of Accounts, (HR-III).
(HR III).
2. Chief Controller of Accounts
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs
2nd Floor, F Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
110011.
3. Shri Yogesh Kumar Meena,
Dy.Controller General of Accounts,
Office of the Controller General of Accounts,
Mahalekha Niyantrak
ntrak Bhawan, E-Block,
E
INA, New Delhi-110063.
110063.
4. Ms.Madhu Sharma,
Deputy Secretary,
2
O.A. No.2680/2021
Central Vigilance Commission
Satarkata Bhawan, GPO Ciomplex
INA, New Delhi-110063.
...Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri Hanu Bhaskar with Shri Sarthak)
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A):
By way of this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s) :-
"a. set aside Chargesheet issued by the Respondent No.1 to the Appellant vide Memorandum No.Admn./Vig./K.K.Sharma/2017- 18/825-828 dated 17.12.2020.
b. set aside the Disciplinary Proceeding against Appellant pursuant to the Chargesheet dated 17.12.2020 and ensuing inquiry proceeding arising out of Order No. Admn./Vig./K.K.Sharma/2017- 18/802-804 dated 03.09.2021 passed by the Respondent No.1.
c. Pass any such Order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case and in the interest of Justice."
2. The basic facts of the case are that the applicant belongs to Group 'B' Central Civil Accounts Service. He was posted in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. During 2012-2013, he worked as DDO in the office of Chief Controller of Accounts under Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs from April 2013 to May 2014 after which he was 3 O.A. No.2680/2021 transferred to another section/unit under the same office. During the said period, he was assigned the charge of Nirman Lekha Project (NLP). The NLP Cell was a technical design of Nirman Lekha Software for the purpose of computerization of e-payment in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. During such period, an audit report was submitted by Respondent No.4. Applicant's claim that on the said audit report a show cause notice was issued to the applicant vide OM dated 17.08.2015. The applicant submitted his response vide detailed reply dated 24.08.2015 wherein he categorically denied the charges. However, being dissatisfied with explanation, a show cause notice was issued asking him to explain his position with regard to the audit objection raised in the said Special Audit Report. The applicant submitted his response on 02.09.2015 but after a gap of more than 16 months he was informed that a preliminary inquiry has been instituted against him vide order dated 23.11.2016. Thereafter, the preliminary inquiry was conducted subsequent to which a charge memo under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to him on 18.04.2017. The applicant submits that the charge memo was not issued by the competent authority because as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, the disciplinary authority of the 4 O.A. No.2680/2021 applicant was the Chief Controller of Accounts and therefore the charge memo should have been issued under the signatures of Respondent No.2.
3. The contention of the applicant is that in the charge memo dated 18.04.2017 total five charges were leveled against him and all of them originated from the said Special Audit Report. Thereafter, the applicant submitted his representation to the said charge memo on 05.05.2017 denying his involvement but on 31.07.2017 the Respondent No.3 issued orders to hold an inquiry under Rule 16 (1) (b) read with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and issued another charge memo despite the fact that he was incompetent to do so as per S.No.33 of Schedule II of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The fresh charge memo again originated from the Special Audit Report submitted by the Respondent No.4. Besides the charge memo had also some factual inaccuracy inasmuch as it was wrongly mentioned that the applicant was working as DDO from April 2013 to May 2014. Subsequently, a corrigendum was issued to the above effect. The applicant was once again asked to submit his reply within 10 days by the said authority who was not competent to issue any charge memo. Subsequently, vide 5 O.A. No.2680/2021 order dated 06.10.2017 a regular inquiry officer and presenting officer were appointed to conduct the enquiry proceedings against the applicant. Applicant submits that as per the statutory Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the order instituting inquiry and appointment of IO/PO should have been issued under the own signature of the disciplinary authority.
4. The inquiry officer held the first hearing on 28.10.2017 wherein the applicant raised certain objections regarding non-providing of relevant original vouchers/bills etc. and subsequently photocopies of the relevant pages were provided to the applicant. The applicant was also given an opportunity to inspect the record but he again requested the respondents to provide copies of the proper documents. After this, the applicant was relieved from the post held by him vide order dated 12.01.2018 to join his new place of posting in the Ministry of Jal Shakti.
5. In the meanwhile, the Office of CGA issued orders granting Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to the AAOs vide order dated 04.07.2018 but the applicant was denied the 6 O.A. No.2680/2021 NFU by the respondents which was given to others with effect from 01.01.2016.
6. The inquiry did not make any progress till July 2018 and the inquiry officer was also relieved from the charge of inquiry officer. Subsequently in March 2019, five other officers, the then CCA, CA, ACA and two AAO, were involved in the NLP along with Respondent No.4 in the financial years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 were issued charge memos in a common proceedings on the basis of the very Special Audit Report which the Respondent No.4 had submitted but no chargesheet was issued to Respondent No.4 who was herself closely associated with the design and implementation of the NLP.
7. In the meanwhile, in the month of August 2020, one of the aforesaid charged officers, Shri Ameesh Aggarwal, the then ACA, who was issued the charge memo in March 2019, challenged the charge memo and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings arising thereof before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal.
7O.A. No.2680/2021
8. After a gap of two and a half years from July 2018 onwards, suddenly the Respondent No.1 on 17.12.2020 passed orders withdrawing the charge memo dated 18.04.2017 and on the same date, also issued impugned charge memo to the applicant de novo which contained a total of four charges that were similar to the first four charges of the charge memo dated 18.04.2017 and again originated from the said Special Audit Report.
9. On 24.03.2021, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1043/100 of 2020 quashed the charge memo of Shri Ameesh Aggarwal and consequential disciplinary proceedings, but also the Audit Report which was the basis of all proceedings on the grounds of impropriety, bias and being violative of an important facet of principles of natural justice. The relevant portions of the Tribunal's order reproduced in that OA are as under:
"13. It was already mentioned that the 3rd respondent was associated with the preparation of the Nirman Lekha Project, Phase-I, along with the applicant. It is also matter of record that she continued in the organization even at the stage of Phase-II, whereas the applicant was transferred to a different Ministry.
14. It may be true that the 3rd respondent became part of the establishment of the CGA, and 8 O.A. No.2680/2021 she was assigned the duty of Heading the team, to conduct Special Audit or inquiry into Phase-I of the Project. In all fairness, she ought to have excused herself from doing it, in view of the fact that she was associated with it. The 2nd aspect is that in case any irregularities were pointed out in respect of Phase-I of the Project, the 3rd respondent was equally responsible and the disciplinary proceedings ought to have initiated against her also. It is a clear 11 OA 1043/2020 Item No. 32 case of impropriety, bias and violation of an important facet of principles of natural justice.
15. By no means, we propose to make any pronouncement upon the allegations, or as to the occurrence of the irregularity in the process. The matter can certainly by inquired into, by a team of the officers, of which the 3rd respondent is not a member. Depending upon the outcome of such an audit or inquiry, proceedings can certainly be initiated. The report submitted by a committee headed by the 3rd respondent, needs to be ignored and kept aside.
16. We, therefore, allow the O.A. and set aside the impugned Charge Memo dated 22.03.2019. It is left open to the respondents to conduct a special audit or inspection into the Nirman Lekha Project, Phase-I, through a team of officers, of which the 3rd respondent is not a member, and to take further steps depending upon the recommendations that may be made by the team, so constituted. There shall be no order as to costs."
10. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the applicant submitted his representation to Respondent No.1 requesting him to withdraw the charge memo dated 17.12.2020 on grounds of parity. The said order of the 9 O.A. No.2680/2021 Tribunal was challenged through Review Application No.47/2021 in OA 1043/2020 which was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 29.07.2021 wherein the Tribunal categorically mentioned that Ms.Madhu Sharma, Respondent No.3 (Respondent No.4 in present OA) audited the work of Nirman Lekha Project for entire period from financial year 2012-15 unmindful of the fact that she was herself associated with it and in fact headed it from 09.09.2014 onwards. The relevant portion of the order dated 29.07.2021 is reproduced as under:
"5. It is clearly evident that third respondent was very much associated with the project and in fact, headed it from 09.09.2014 onwards. The audit conducted by her in respect of that project covered the period from 2012 to 2015. However, in the charge memo, an effort was made to compartmentalize the execution of the project in such a way that the applicant alone is covered.
6. We do not find any merit in the RA and the same is accordingly dismiss."
11. As the respondents failed to comply with the orders dated 24.03.2021 and 29.07.2021, Shri Ameesh Aggarwal preferred Contempt Petition No.161/2021 in the said OA and the respondents were asked to file the compliance report by 01.10.2021.
10O.A. No.2680/2021
12. Despite the fact that the Special Audit Report was set aside by this Tribunal, the Respondent No.1 ought to have discontinued the proceedings against the applicant on the ground of parity and being similarly placed, instead of acting upon his representation, Respondent No.1 passed impugned order dated 03.09.2021 instituting regular inquiry against the applicant under Rule 16 (1) (b) read with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
13. The Union of India, on the other hand, filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No.11100 of 2021 in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein the proceedings in the contempt petition were to remain standoff till the next of hearing. However, hearing against the applicant continued despite his objection. Subsequently due to illness, the applicant could not attend the hearing on 24.10.2021. Aggrieved of the above action, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the above-mentioned relief.
14. The basic contention of the applicant is that allegation leveled in the article of charge pertains to NLP as well as 11 O.A. No.2680/2021 Admin Section. While working as DDO at Admin Section, the Respondent No.4 holding the rank of Assistant Controller of Accounts who worked in the office of Respondent No.2 from July 2013 to March 2015 was entrusted with the responsibility in the Admin Section from 24.09.2013. She was also supervisory officer of the applicant and gave him outstanding rating.
15. The Respondent No.4 being entrusted with admin function from 24.09.2013 was directly involved in the procurement and processing of payments related to Phase 1 of the NLP. Subsequently from 09.09.2014 she became Incharge of the said Project. Vide office order dated 02.07.2015, the Respondent No.4 was appointed as a team leader to conduct an audit in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development for period 2012-2015 which included her own tenure in the Ministry and also her own work including NLP. The said appointment of the Respondent No.4 to conduct audit was not only violative of principles of natural justice that no one should become judge in his own cause, but also contrary to Chapter IV of the Internal Audit Manual, 2014, which reads as under:
12O.A. No.2680/2021
"No auditor should audit upon his decision nor should he be involved in audit of a unit where he may have worked within the past one year."
16. But the Respondent No.4 submitted Special Audit Report which became basis for the issuance of charge memo issued to the applicant. Besides the principles of violation of natural justice, there has also been inordinate delay though Special Audit Report was conducted on 16.07.2015, the respondents conducted preliminary enquiry after 16 months. There was considerable delay in appointment of inquiry officer. Though a chargesheet was issued on 18.04.2017 under Rule 16, it was converted into Rule 14 major penalty proceedings vide second charge memo dated 31.07.2017 followed by a corrigendum dated 07.09.2017. Even after the appointment of inquiry officer, the enquiry did not make any progress and in fact on 17.12.2020, the chargesheet was withdrawn after 3 years and 8 months. On 17.12.2020, a fresh, i.e. the third charge memo under Rule 16 was issued and on 03.09.2021, i.e. after 9 months from the date of issuance of third charesheet, minor penalty disciplinary proceedings were converted into Rule 14 Inquiry Proceedings. All this cause to show that the respondents were never serious in conducting the disciplinary 13 O.A. No.2680/2021 proceedings against the applicant and due to the lackadaisical approach of the respondents, the impugned proceedings have been deliberately delayed. In support of this contention, the applicant has drawn our attention to the following judgments:
A) PV Mahadevan vs M.D., Tamilnadu Housing Board (2005) 6 SCC 636 B) State of MP vs Bani Singh 1990 (Supp) SCC 738 C) State of A.P. vs N.Radhkrishnan (1998) 4 SCC 154 D) Prem Nath Bali vs. Reg., High Court of Delhi & Anr. (2015) 16 SCC 415.
17. The applicant has submitted that the delay in conducting departmental proceedings has caused mental agony to him and he has also been denied Non-Functional Upgradation. Lastly, the applicant has contended that no other officers, who had worked as DDO from 2012 to 2015, have been issued chargesheet, except the applicant whereas his role as a DDO was only confined to processing of the bill as per the vouchers and sanction granted by the competent authority and he had no role to play in the payment of the bills as the same were made by the PAO. However, no other officers or competent authorities who granted sanction were issued any chargesheet.
14O.A. No.2680/2021
18. We also note that this Tribunal vide its order dated 06.12.2021 had stayed the operation of impugned charge memo dated 17.12.2020 against the applicant till the next date of hearing, which has continued till date.
19. The respondents have not filed any counter to the OA. In this matter only an MA was filed (MA No.297/2022) on 03.02.2022 praying for vacation/modification of interim order dated 06.12.2021. In the said MA, which is being treated as counter, the respondents have averred that in the present case, the charge memo is issued to the applicant regarding the misconduct committed by him for the period particularly April 2013 to May 2014 wherein the Respondent No.4 had no role whatsoever in the said alleged misconduct, of which the applicant is accused. It is asserted that the Respondent No.4 was not in any way acted with the said NLP. Moreover, it had nothing to do with the decision of this Tribunal in OA No.1043/2020 dated 24.03.2021 titled as Ameesh Agarwal vs. Union of India & Others wherein the impugned charge memo dated 22.03.2019 had been quashed and left it open to the respondents to conduct a special audit or inspection into 15 O.A. No.2680/2021 the Nirman Lekha Project, Phase-I, through a team of officers of which the 3rd respondent (4th respondent in the present OA) is not a member.
20. The respondents have contended that this OA has nothing to do with that appellant in OA No.1043/2020 and he is erroneously trying to take benefit of the order dated 24.03.2021 quashing the charge memo. They contend that the present OA has been filed in November 2021 and if the applicant was aggrieved by issuing of the charge memo to him, he should have approached this Tribunal in August 2017. He is drawing sustenance for the present case from the said OA. Therefore, an attempt to link the present OA to OA No.1043/2020 is merely an afterthought to claim the parity does not actually exist. The respondents have agitated the same issue during the course of hearing and also in their written submission dated 13.05.2013.
21. It is further pointed out that even the basis for issuance of charge memo to Ameesh Agarwal was not the Special Audit Report and the Respondent No.4, but the PE conducted another senior officer Ms. Krishna Tyagi, CCA 16 O.A. No.2680/2021 and she submitted her report on 26.03.2018 to the CGA. This report pointed out the culpability of Ameesh Aggarwal after following the due process, including the first stage advice of CVC, charge memo was issued. The respondents in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs have already filed a Writ Petition No.1110/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, challenging the Tribunal's order. Learned counsel also submits that while the applicant and Respondent No.4 may have worked in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs simultaneously in their official capacity, but the records reveals that the Respondent No.4 had nothing to do with the appellant in so far as his misconduct is being investigated. The Respondent No.4 joined the Ministry of Urban Development on 29.07.2013 on probation basis and took charge of the said project only on 09.09.2014 till April 2015. Thus the period (April 2013 to May 2014) for which the appellant is being investigated has nothing to do with Respondent No.4. The Respondents have also annexed work allocation of the Respondent No.4 to this effect.
22. It has also been made out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the charge memo as issued to the 17 O.A. No.2680/2021 appellant is under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which relates to minor penalty and the Department has taken a view not to go ahead with the inquiry and upon the submission of the appellant the matter will be decided. Further in the circumstances of the case without holding any inquiry in the matter and if the disciplinary authority deemed it fit, he could impose a minor penalty in accordance with Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The respondents after looking into the representation of the applicant herein and if his grievances remain, he can always approach the Tribunal for redressal of the same.
23. After perusing the pleadings on record and hearing both the parties, the following issues, which are relevant in the case, are framed:
i) Was the applicant looking after the Nirman Lekha Project from April 2013 to May 2014;
ii) Is the charge memo based on the Special Audit Report
(iii) Is the order of CAT in Ameesh Aggarwal has any bearing of instant OA in the light of the principles of parity;18 O.A. No.2680/2021
iv) Was the Respondent No.4 supervising officer of the applicant specially with reference to the Nirman Lekha Project and
(v) Should the charge memo be quashed because of delay.
So far as the first issue is concerned, we have looked at the work allocation of the applicant for the period which reads as under:
S Period Work Allocated No. 1 Vide O/o No.245/2013 dated LOC & T&C 3.9.2013 (placed at 'A' Section 2 Vide O/o No.274/2013 dated Work related to 24.9.2013 Pr.Accounts Office (placed at 'B' (Acctts.) in addition to LOC & T.C. Section 3 Vide OM No.A-32015/1/2013- Work related to
14/WD/Gr.A/Pr.AO/Admn./1/S- Pr.Accounts Office 2/28-35 dated 3.4.2014 (Admn., T&C and (placed at 'C' Internal Audit), PAO (Sectt.) PAO (DGW) 4 Vide OM No.A-32015/1/2014- Work related to 15/WD/Gr.A/Pr.AO/Admn./1/S- Nirman Lekha 2/4193-99 dated 9.9.2014 Project, Internal (placed at 'D' Audit, Legal Cell & E&W section of Principal Accounts Office (Accounts) 19 O.A. No.2680/2021 5 Vide OM No.A-32015/1/2014- Work related to 15/Gr.A/Pr.AO/Admn./1/S- Nirman Lekha 2/91146-80 dated 3.2.201 Project, Internal (placed at 'E' Audit, Legal Cell & E&W section of Principal Accounts Office.
24. It appears from the above work allocated ....that she was given work related to Nirman Lekha Project and Principal Accounts Office (Accounts) with effect from 09.09.2014. Prior to this she was handling T&C & LOC Section, work related to Principal Accounts Office (Accounts) and lastly administration, PAO etc. with effect from 03.04.2014. Thus, we have no reason to believe that the Respondent No.4 was looking after the work of Nirman Lekha Project between August 2013 to May 2014. In fact, the order dated 03.04.2014 vide which she was allocated the work related to Principal Accounts Office Administration, T&C and Internal Audit) etc. Therefore, the contention that the Respondent No.4 was looking after the Nirman Lekha Project does not appear to hold.
25. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited the relevant portion of the charge memo just opposing the 20 O.A. No.2680/2021 same against the relevant part of the Special Audit Report is as follows:
"Comparative table between the Article of Charges mentioned in impugned Charge Memo dated 17.12.2020 and Audit Para mentioned in the Special Audit Report given by the Respondent No 4 is tabulated as under:
ARTICLE SPECIAL AUDIT PARA SPECIAL AUDIT OF NUMBER REPORT A-9 AT CHARGE PAGE 123-170 OF O.A. 1 6 Page 136 2 7 Page 137 3 8 Page 138 4 9 Page 140 RIDER:
1- Article-1 of the Impugned Charge Memo dated 17.12.2020 issued to the Petitioner pertains to Nirman Lekha Project is same as Article 1 of the Charge Memo @ Pg 284 issued to Mr. Ameesh Aggarwal which was subject matter of dispute in O.A. No.1043/2020. (Annexure A-33 @ Pg 281 to 291)."
26. Learned counsel has thus tried to establish that the charges were based on the Special Audit Report conducted by the Respondent No.4. The respondents, on the other hand, had denied this contention stating that subsequent to the Special Audit Report a preliminary inquiry report was prepared by Ms. Richa Pandey, Indian Civil Accounts 21 O.A. No.2680/2021 Service (ICAS) and forwarded to the Department on 08.02.2017, which became the basis of the charge memo issued to the appellant and the charges were initially drafted by the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs and subsequently by the Ministry of Jal Shalkti. However, from perusal of records/submissions, it appears that in the forwarding note dated 08.02.2017 of said preliminary inquiry report submitted by Dr. Richa Pandey, a copy of the Special Audit Report conducted by office of CGA has also been attached. This is an indication that the Special Audit Report was definitely taken into account while submitting the said preliminary report and perhaps it will not be correct to say that the preliminary inquiry report had nothing to do with the Special Audit Report. Our view gets strength from the show cause notice issued Annexure A-12 which reads as under:
"An audit was carried out by a tear deputed by O/o the Controller General of Accounts to review the payments in the Olo the Chief Controller of Accounts (UD) during the financial year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The audit has pointed out various lapses and irregularities relating to infructuous expenditure on installation of software, irregular payment of networking related to Nirman lekha, irregularities in procurement of software and server etc. The relevant extract of the audit paras and details of the irregularities are enclosed in Annexure para No. 4,6,7,8,9,11, Compl. I, II, VIII, XI, XIII, XVII."22 O.A. No.2680/2021
This shows that the show cause notice based on which charge memo was framed was linked to audit report. But it is also evident that during the said period, the Respondent No.4 was not looking after the Nirman Lekha Project. Moreover, the audit report, as evident from the show cause notice, pertains to three financial years i.e. 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. While during the financial year 2014-15, the Respondent No.4 was assigned the responsibility of Nirman Lekha Project, the same cannot be said for financial year 2013-14 which concerns the applicant. Even if the charge memo is based on the audit report, the Respondent No.4 was not holding the charge of Nirman Lekha Project during the said period.
27. So far linkage between the two OAs is concerned, while the said quashing the audit report is under challenge in the Hon'ble High Court given the fact that the report can be segregated financial year wise and Respondent No.4 was not associated with the Nirman Lekha Project during 2013-14, the credibility of the audit report for the said year cannot be questioned and thus the cardinal principle that "no auditor should audit upon his decision 23 O.A. No.2680/2021 nor should he be involved of an audit unit where he may have worked within the past one year" does not apply in this case.
28. With regard to the issue of Respondent No.4 being the supervisory officer, the applicant had contended that for the year 2013-2014 the Respondent No.4 was the reporting officer given his Annual Performance Appraisal Report. We have perused the said Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 2013-2014 and it is a fact that the Respondent No.4 was his reporting officer and he also got grade of 8.2 out of 10 and his integrity was also certified as beyond doubt. We also find that neither his description of duties nor the assessment done by the assessing officer (Respondent No.4) mentioned anything about Nirman Lekha Project. This leads us to the conclusion that while Respondent No.4 was the reporting authority with regard to Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the applicant for the year 2013-2014. She did not supervise the work related to Nirman Lekha Project.
29. So far as the issue of inordinate delay is concerned, it has been explained that the actions of the applicant for 24 O.A. No.2680/2021 the period April 2013 to May 2014 are being investigated and on the same charges, a charge memo dated 18.04.2017 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued and since the applicant did not agree to the same, then charge memo dated 31.07.2017 was issued in detail. At that time, he was in the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs and was subsequently transferred to the Ministry of Jal Shakti. Since there was a change in the competent authority to issue charge memo, the Ministry of Jal Shakti issued charge memo dated 17.12.2020 on the same charges and lines through the competent authority. Therefore delay in issuing the charge memo seems to be due to administrative reasons. Moreover, we may also refer to the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 wherein paras 12 to 16, it is held as under :-
"In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in allowing the Writ Petition. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or showcause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt 25 O.A. No.2680/2021 Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere showcause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show- cause notice or charge sheet. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."
30. In the facts and circumstances, we do not find the impugned charge memo as falling under the rare and exceptional circumstances or the same wholly illegal, requiring us to interfere.
26O.A. No.2680/2021
31. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in the OA and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /kdr/