Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Suresh Sharma vs National Technical Research ... on 3 February, 2020
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.1169/2018
With
OA No. 720/2019
New Delhi, this the 3rd day of February, 2020
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A)
OA No. 1169/2018
Suresh Sharma, Aged about 65 years,
Retired Addl. Controller (Admn.), NTRO,
Group „A‟,
S/o late Sh. OP Sharma,
R/o 305, Pink Apartments,
Sector-18B, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110078 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. National Technical Research Organisation,
Through its Chairman,
NTRO, Block-III,
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067
2. Sh. PV Kumar,
Former Chairman, NTRO,
4074, Ground Floor,
Sector-D, Pocket-4,
Vasantkunj, New Delhi-110070
3. Sh. GSN Raju,
Former Scientist „H‟ NTRO,
And Inquiring Officer,
143, Kartik Nagar,
LRDE Lay Out, Dodakkundi,
Bangalore-560037
4. Dr. Harshvardhan Raju,
2
Former Director (CIRA) &
Self appointed PIO, NTRO,
House No.891/7, Savargal Shiroda,
Shiroda Post, Ponda Taluk,
Goa-403 103
5. Controller of Administration,
NTRO, Block-III,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
6. Shri Jai Jeet Singh, Former CD, CIRA,
And officiating Controller of Admn.,NTRO,
ADGP, Old Council Hall,
Maharashtra State Police HQ,
SB Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400039
7. Air Cmde (Retd.) V. Sehgal,
Former OSD (on contract) &
Former Acting Director
(Establishment/Pers.), NTRO
Flat No.113, A Block, Sector 47,
Jalvayu Tower, Near Barola Market,
NOIDA-201301
8. Shri Debashish Dey,
Dy. Director (Estt.-I)
NTRO, Block-III,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
9. Sh. Rahul Roy Chaudhary,
Former Deputy Director
& Head of Office, NTRO,
Flat No.124, Dakshinayan Apartments,
Plot No.19, Sector-4,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
10. Director in-charge of NTRO,
Prime Minister‟s Office, South Block,
New Delhi-110 011
11. Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahajahan Road, New Delhi-110001
- Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Aamir Sheikh for Mr.Hanu Bhaskar)
3
OA No. 702/2019
Suresh Sharma, Aged about 65 years,
Retired Addl. Controller (Admn.)
NTRO, Group „A‟,
S/o late Sh. OP Sharma,
R/o 305, Pink Apartments,
Sector-18B, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078 -Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. MK Bhardwaj)
VERSUS
1. NTRO through its
Chairman,
NTRO, Block-III,
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067
2. Sh. PV Kumar,
Former Chairman, NTRO,
4074, Ground Floor,
Sector-D, Pocket-4,
Vasantkunj, New Delhi-110070
3. Controller of Administration,
NTRO, Block-III,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
4. Shri Jai Jeet Singh, Former CD, CIRA,
And officiating Controller of Admn.,NTRO,
ADGP, Old Council Hall,
Maharashtra State Police HQ,
SB Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400039
5. Maj. Gen (Retd.) SK Wadhawan,
Former Centre Director (CED)
And IO, Flat No.3, A-407, AWHO Township,
Sector CH-I, Pocket-V, GurjinderVihar,
Greater Noida (UP)
6. Air Cmde (Retd.) V. Sehgal,
Former OSD (on contract) &
Former Acting Director
(Establisment/Pers.), NTRO
4
Flat No.113, A Block, Sector 47,
Jalvayu Tower, Near Barola Market,
NOIDA-201301
7. Shri Debashish Dey,
Dy. Director (Estt.-II)
NTRO, Block-III,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
8. Sh. Rahul Roy Chaudhary,
Former Deputy Director
& Head of Office, NTRO,
Flat No.124, Dakshinayan Apartments,
Plot No.19, Sector-4,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
9. Director in-charge of NTRO,
Prime Minister‟s Office, South Block,
New Delhi-110 011
10. Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahajahan Road, New Delhi-110001
11. Secretary,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, GPO Complex,
Block A, INA, New Delhi-110023 - Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Aamir Sheikh for Sh. Hanu
Bhaskar)
: O R D E R (ORAL) :
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:
As common questions of facts and law are involved in both the OA No. 720/2019 and OA No. 1169/2018, the same are disposed of by this common order. Both the OAs are filed by the same applicant.5 OA No. 1169/2018
The applicant was selected and appointed as Assistant, in the Central Secretariat Service in the year 1975. Thereafter, he was promoted to the posts of Section Officer, Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Additional Controller (Admn.). In the year 2005, the first respondent Organization was established.
The applicant was taken on deputation, as Deputy Secretary. It is stated that he was absorbed as Director in the Organization in February, 2006.
Thereafter, he was promoted as Additional Controller.
The applicant states that he played an important role in shaping the first respondent organization and on several occasions, he addressed letters to the superior authority pointing out the irregularities that were taking place in the Organization. Details of some of them are furnished in the OA.
2. On 22.09.2011, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) issued a charge memo, alleging various acts and omissions on the part of the applicant contained in the articles of charge. On receipt of the same, the applicant sought various clarifications on several aspects of the disciplinary proceedings, such as the 6 identification of the DA, particulars of the steps taken by the Inquiry Officer (IO) and has made request for furnishing of certain documents. He has also made a request for change of IO. The applicant filed OA No. 3037/2014, challenging the charge memo. That was dismissed by the Tribunal on 06.03.2017. The Writ Petition against that order of the Tribunal was also dismissed on 18.08.2017. In an SLP filed by the applicant, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the proceedings, but directed conclusion thereof, within a stipulated time.
3. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant retired from service. Therefore, the proceedings were treated as those under Rule 9 of the CCS(Pension) Rules. The IO submitted a report on 02.05.2014, holding four Articles of Charge as proved, two as not proved and, one as partly proved. Copy of the report was furnished to the applicant and it was also forwarded to the UPSC for their advice and CVC for their second stage advice. On receipt of the advice from the UPSC, it was forwarded to the applicant. The representation submitted by the applicant in that behalf was taken 7 into account. Through order dated 20.10.2017, the President imposed the penalty of withholding of 10% monthly pension for a period of two years, upon the applicant.
4. In this OA, the applicant has challenged the order of penalty dated 20.10.2017, the memorandum of charge dated 22.09.2011 and the report of the IO dated 02.05.2014. He has also prayed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against those respondents who are said to have harassed him for his acting as a whistle-blower.
5. The applicant contends that the very initiation of proceedings against him was totally untenable and without any basis, and the respondents resorted to them only as a vindictive measure. He contends that he was instrumental in exposing several irregularities in the organization, and some of the higher officials have hatched a plan to harass him. The applicant contends that the findings recorded by the IO are either perverse or are without any basis and they do not stand scrutiny of law. He further submits that the order of penalty suffers from various lapses. 8
6. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit in the OA. They contend that the charges framed against the applicant are very serious in nature and notwithstanding the obstructions caused by the applicant from time to time, the inquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the law. They contend that mere perusal of the charges would disclose that how the applicant became instrumental, in leaking vital and secret information. The respondents further contend that the prescribed procedure was followed at every stage, and the applicant was also given adequate opportunity throughout the proceedings. They submit that the order of penalty does not warrant interference.
7. We heard Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Aamir Sheikh for Shri Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondents.
8. The career of the applicant started in the Central Secretariat Service. He was initially appointed as Assistant in the year 1975 and rose up to the level of Additional Controller (Admn.) in November, 2009. The first respondent Organization appears to have been formed in the year 2005 with a view to handle the 9 issues of the safety and security of the State in a highly professional and efficient manner. The activities of the first respondents are substantial different from those in the other organizations. Confidentiality is a phenomenon, running through all its activities. The applicant is said to have been absorbed as Director and thereafter promoted as Additional Controller (Admn.) in the organization. Even from the synopsis and list of dates furnished by the applicant along with the OA, it appears that he devoted most of his energy in finding fault with the very functioning of the organization and even to submit complaints against some of the officers. He made a reference to the news items published and printed in electronic media about the alleged irregularities committed by the senior officers of the first respondent. Being a very senior officer, he was not supposed to relish such developments.
9. The applicant was issued a charge memo dated 22.09.2011 with seven articles of charge. They read as under:-
"ARTICLE-I That the said Shri Suresh Sharma while functioning as Addl. Controller (Admn.) NTRO 10 Hqrs., New Delhi willfully and unauthorisedly passed on 4 (four) official documents to Shri Pawan Kumar, the then Dy. Director (NGO) who was not authorized to possess these documents. Thus, Shri Suresh Sharma violated Departmental Security Instructions-2005, Rule3(1) and Rule 11 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-II That the said Shri Suresh Sharma while functioning as Addl. Controller (Admn.), NTRO HQrs., New Delhi connected his official computer having official/classified data to internet, thereby endangering the safety and security of official documents.
Thus Shri Suresh Sharma contravened provisions of Departmental Security Instruction- 2005 and Rule 3(1) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-III That the said Shri Suresh Sharma while functioning as Addl. Controller (Admn.) NTRO Hqrs., New Delhi took eleven photographs inside his office room and uploaded the same on the computer connected with internet. Bringing photography instrumental and doing photography in NTRO premises is not permitted as per Departmental Security Instructions-2005. Thus, Shri Suresh Sharma acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and violated Rule 3(1) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1965.
ARTICLE-IV That the said Shri Suresh Sharma while functioning as Addl. Controller (Admn.), NTRO Hqrs. New Delhi connected two USB devices (pen drives) to his official computer HP Computer S.No.IN1601021F (Internet connected) and two 11 USB devices (pen drives) to his official computer HP Computer S.No.INA9150366(stand alone) in violation of Departmental Security Instructions- 2015 and NTRO security instructions issued vide letter No.XXII/S&CI/009/05/PI-3980 dated 13.10.2008.
Thus, Shri Suresh Sharma acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant, violative of Rule 3(1) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-V That the said Shri Suresh Sharma while functioning as Addl. Controller (Admn.), NTRO Hqrs., New Delhi, prior to his departure to Bengaluru on transfer (June, 2010), asked Shri SS Bhadauria, AO, Shri Udeesh Kumar, UDC and Smt. Puneeta, Technical Assistant to delete official files/data from their computers. The above acts of Shri Suresh Sharma are prejudicial to the interest of the organization and are subversive of discipline.
Thus, Shri Suresh Sharma acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant, showed lack of devotion to duty and integrity, violative of Rule 3(1) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-VI Shri Suresh Sharma with a view to pressurizing Dr. Raju from proceeding further in the inquiry against him wrote a letter dated 25.06.2010 stating, "if any member of my family or I take some drastic step like ending life, YOU WOULD BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ABETMENT TO SUICIDE/DRIVING TO SUICIDE."
ARTICLE-VII That the said Shri Suresh Sharma while functioning as Addl. Controller (Admn.), NTRO Hqrs, New Delhi asked Shri Pawan Kumar, the then Dy. Director (NGO) and Shri S.S. 12 Bhadauria, AO, not to cooperate in the inquiry being conducted by Dr. Harshvardhan by proceeding on leave. Shri Pawan Kumar did accordingly but Shri SS Bhadauria continued attending office.
Thus, Shri Suresh Sharma instigated other Govt. servants to impede Govt. work and indulge in activities subversive of discipline and prejudicial to the interest of the organization. He acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant, violative of Rule 3(1) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964." It was served upon the applicant on 03.10.2011 and he was required to submit explanation within 10 days. However, the applicant went on making representations, raising several issues and insisting on furnishing of documents. In spite of repeated requests, the applicant did not submit his defence statement. Left with no alternative, the respondents appointed the Inquiring Authority (IA). It was only through a letter dated 03.01.2012 that the applicant denied his charges against him, but there again, made a request for furnishing of 47 documents. The IA considered the same and passed orders. The submission of the representations continued. Ultimately, the IO submitted a report on 02.05.2014. His findings on the various articles of charge are as under:-
13
"11. Article I 11.1.1 The specific charge that Shri Suresh Sharma while functioning as Addl. Controller (Admin), NTRO HQ‟s, New Delhi willfully and unauthorisedly passed on 4 (four) official documents to Shri Pawan Kumar, the then, Deputy Director (NGO) could not be fully established for the following reasons:-
(i) the fact that the documents are sensitive and supposed to be not with Shri Pawan Kumar as he was functioning as DD (NGO) at that time, are found in the computer of Mr. Pawan Kumar, is fully established.
(ii) The documents belonged to
Establishment is also true.
(iii) Though all State witnesses
incidentally many of them were part of the search team confirmed that these documents were provided by Mr. Suresh Sharma based on the statement made by Mr. Pawan Kumar during the questioning (June, 15 to 17, 2010), there was no written statement by Mr. Pawan Kumar. Also, Mr. Pawan Kumar whose depositions had lot of weightage to conclude, had categorically said that he never made such statement for which no cross check is possible.
(iv) Therefore, the passage of documents to Mr. Pawan Kumar which belonged to estt.div is only established and the passage of documents specifically by Mr. Suresh Sharma could not be established. Giving due importance to the term "will fully and unauthorisedly" and also specific mention that Shri Suresh Sharma has passed on the document, it is concluded that the charge is partially proved. It is only proved that the sensitive documents of Establishment were passed on to DD (NGO).14
11.2 Article II 11.2.1 The specific charge that Shri Suresh Sharma, while functioning as Addl.Controller, NTRO, HQ‟s , New Delhi connected his official computer having official/classified data to internet had been examined in true sense having security implication and the following are the findings:-
(i) It is established that the said two computers, i.e., HP computer Srl. No.INI601021F and HP Computer Srl No.INA 91503Y6 were in the possession of the CO at the time of investigation based on the following:-
a) All state witnesses, some of them were part of the minor imaging team had confirmed of this.
b) The yearly audit report of these Computers confirmed that they belonged to Shri Suresh Sharma.
c) Confirmation by SW 9 (Ms. Jyoti working as PA to CO at that time( that Mr. Suresh Sharma was holding two computers one of them was connected to internet.
(ii) The Defence of CO that he was not issued the computers as per the letter of MMG, was false as he was in the possession of the said computers.
(iii) As the mirror imaging process was automatic and fool proof, it was also established that the said confidential documents were available on the internet computer.
11.3 Article III 11.3.1 As per mirror imaged data, 4 photographs of CO and Ms. Jyoti Sachdeva and some family photographs are seen in the computer. It is also confirmed from the analysis that the layout of the room is similar to the room of CO and definitely belonged to the HQ‟s of NTRO. Therefore, uploading of the photographs taken in the room of HQ‟s has been confirmed and this is possible only by bringing a photography device 15 into the office, much against the security regulation.
Therefore the charge is proved.
11.4 Article IV 11.4.1 As per the report of mirror image, it is confirmed that two pen drives were connected to the computer many times and it was also established that the mirror image process was correct. This fact was also confirmed by all concerned state witnesses except SW-9. 11.4.2 The CO, in his defence, states that the said computers were not issued to him was not proved to be correct as proved in the previous charges.
11.4.3 The CO‟s defence that the mirror image was carried out in his absence was also not true as the CO himself agreed that he left the place in between, while mirror image was being carried out.
Therefore, the fact is established and the charge is proved.
11.5 Article V 11.5.1 The fact that the CO had instructed all his staff to delete all data files form the computers of Establishment could not be established fully due to the following:-
i) Only Mr. SS Bhaduria had confirmed this, but none of the others concerned, i.e. Mr. Udeesh Kumar and Mrs. Punita supported this aspect.
ii) Further, the deletion/addition of data files is a regular phenomena for only working person and cannot be taken as the intentional act.
Therefore, the charge is not proved.
11.6 Article VI 11.6.1 It is confirmed by the CO himself during the examination of IO, that he wrote this letter 16 because he felt that he was threatened by the behavior of Dr. Harshvardhan Raju. 11.6.2 Whatever may be the circumstances, the said letter is written by CO, without taking the permission of management and hence the charge is proved.
11.7 Article VII 11.7.1 As there was not written evidence and the fact was cannot convincingly deposed by Mr. Bhaduria or Mr. Pawan Kumar the charge that Mr. Suresh Sharma asked the persons to proceed on long leave on medical grounds could not be fully established and the charge is not proved."
The copy of the report was furnished to the applicant and was also forwarded to the CVC and UPSC. The UPSC tendered its advice on 18.11.2016. A copy thereof was furnished to the applicant. On his part, the applicant submitted his representation on 04.04.2017. Taking the same into account, the DA passed order dated 20.10.2017, imposing the penalty of withholding of 10% of monthly pension for a period of two years.
10. The applicant made an attempt to challenge the charge memo itself by filing OA No. 3037/2014. The challenge was not successful before the Tribunal, Hon‟ble High Court as well as Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The record discloses that the applicant went on making representations on one pretext or the other 17 and in a way he became an instrumental in delaying the proceedings.
11. The proceedings, that were commenced under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, got converted into those under Rule 9 of CCS(Pension) Rules on account of the retirement of the applicant in the year 2014.
12. Though the applicant raised issues about the approval of initiation of disciplinary proceedings, charge-sheet, order of punishment etc. by the DA, he is not able to demonstrate that any irregularity has taken place in that behalf. The applicant was reluctant in submitting his reply to the charge memo and thereafter, to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. Notwithstanding the frequent instances of non-cooperation of the applicant, the IO submitted his report.
13. The objectivity on the part of the IA is apparent from the fact that out of seven articles of charge, which are serious in nature, he held four articles of charge as proved, two as not proved and one, as partly proved. The report of the IO runs into 23 pages, and each and every article was discussed threadbare, 18 taking into account, the imputation by the department with the defence of the applicant and evidence on record. One cannot expect a more objective and impartial treatment than that. The applicant is not able to demonstrate as to which finding of the IO deserves to be interfered with. The Tribunal cannot act as an Appellate Authority in such matters. It is only when the finding of the IO is noticed to be not based on evidence or to be perverse, that the scope for interference exists. The applicant is not able to demonstrate any such factors.
14. The UPSC has also examined the report objectively and tendered its advice. In his remarks, the applicant was not able to demonstrate any defect in the advice tendered by the UPSC. On his part, the DA has examined the entire issue in detail. This is not a case in which DA has simply referred to the report of the IO, advice of the UPSC, remarks offered by the Charged Officer and straightway proceeded to pass an order of punishment. Discussion was undertaken with reference to the various stages. The findings of the IO were also analyzed in an order, running into 13 closely typed pages, and the DA 19 imposed the penalty of 10% cut in pension for a period of two years.
15. The findings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings are such that even in respect of an ordinary civil servant, they are adequate for imposing the penalty, if not a higher one. The first respondent is a highly sensitive organization, and being a very senior officer in it, the applicant was required to maintain discipline, confidentiality and more than all, restraint while dealing with other officers in the organization. He did several acts, which are strictly prohibited and virtually, he became an epicenter of indiscipline in the organization.
16. We are of the view that the punishment imposed against the applicant cannot, at all, be treated as disproportionate, if one takes into account the findings in the inquiry report, and the duties that are to be discharged in the first respondent organization. 20 OA No. 720/2019
17. The applicant was issued another charge memo dated 17.08.2012. It was alleged that he facilitated illegal and irregular appointment of 8 persons, 3 persons as Scientist „B‟; 3 as Technical Assistant „A‟ and 2 as Technician „A‟. It was alleged that the applicant has deviated from the prescribed procedure and has inducted fresh candidates, ignoring the existing practice of drawing officers from other departments. Another allegation was that the applicant received the application forms directly, that too beyond the stipulated time and that resulted in appointment of ineligible persons, compromising with the very functioning of the organization.
18. The applicant submitted his explanation to the same on 11.09.2017. Not satisfied with the explanation, the DA appointed an IA, who in turn, submitted a report on 01.04.2014, holding charge as proved. The copy of the report was furnished to the applicant, but he refused to submit any representation thereto. He went on taking the stand that the Hon‟ble Prime Minister is the DA and that the Chairman of the NTRO, the first respondent, has no 21 power to receive the report of the IA, much less forwarded the same to him. The report of the IA was forwarded to the UPSC and its advice was received through letter dated 04.03.2017. A copy thereof was furnished to the applicant. The matter was also referred to CVC.
19. In the meanwhile, the applicant retired from service and as required under CCS (Pension)Rules, the UPSC was consulted once again. On the advice of the UPSC, proceedings were resumed from the stage of general examination of the applicant by the IA. In compliance with the same, another IA was appointed. The applicant filed OA No. 941/2017, challenging the inquiry that was taken up on the advice of the UPSC. The OA was dismissed. Thereafter, the IA submitted a report on 24.04.2017, holding the charge as proved. The prescribed formalities, such as furnishing of the report to the applicant and taking advice of the UPSC, furnishing a copy thereof to the applicant, were complied with. Ultimately, through order dated 29.06.2018, the DA imposed the penalty of 20% cut in pension for a period of five years. The same is challenged in OA No.720/2019.
22
20. For all practical purposes, the applicant raised the same grounds as he raised in OA No. 1169/2018 and the respondents have also filed a counter affidavit almost on the same lines.
21. The charge framed against the applicant reads as under:-
"Article-I That the said Shri Suresh Sharma, Additional Controller while functioning as Director (Estt.) facilitated illegal and irregular appointments of following ineligible persons with ulterior motives/malafide:-
(i) Shri Praveen Kumar, Scientist „B‟,
(ii) Shri Brij Mohan Singh Scientist „B‟,
(iii) Shri Amit Kumar Mall, Scientist „B‟,
(iv) Smt. Manju Kumari, Technical Assistant „A‟,
(v) Shri Subhendushree Routroy, Technical Assistant „A‟,
(vi) Sh. VV Apparao Killadi, Technical Assistant „A‟,
(vii) Shri Ankush Technician „A‟,
(viii) Shri Jhantu Kr. Maity, Technician „A‟ Thus, Shri Suresh Sharma acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant, caused financial loss to the Govt. (by facilitating irregular and illegal appointments) and committed grave misconduct in violation of Rule 3 of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964."23
22. The statement of imputation reveals the nature of irregularities. Hence, it is felt necessary to extract the same. It reads as under:-
"Article-I That the said Shri Suresh Sharma, Additional Controller while functioning as Director (Estt.) issued a „Restricted Circular No.10/18/Estt-I/NTRO/2006 dated 21.03.2007 for recruitment to the Scientific & Technical posts at NTRO (Doom-Dooma) on deputation/absorption/Re-
employment/direct recruitment basis. The circular was sent to Air Headquarters (DPO I & DPO II); Army Headquarters (MS-X & MS-3B); Aviation Research Centre, Cabinet Secretariat ®, Bikaner House; Comptroller & Auditor General of India, Controller General of Defence Accounts; Defence Research & Development Organisation; Department of Personnel & Training; North Block, New Delhi; Department of Science & Technology, Technology Bhavan, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi; Intelligence Bureau; Ministry of Civil Aviation; Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, CGO Complex, New Delhi, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi; Ministry of Environment & Forest, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, New Delhi; Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi; Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, Naval Headquarters; NRSA, Hyderabad and all Centre Heads, NTRO. The last date for receipt of applications was 10.05.2007.
The applications received against the ibid, restricted circular, were scrutinized by Lt. Col. (Retd.) Suresh Chandra, the then Group Director (CRSA). The scrutiny carried out by Lt. Col. (Retd.) Suresh 24 Chandra was put up for approval of the Competent authority by Shri Suresh Sharma vide note dated 06.07.2007. Following eight persons were finally selected:-
(i) Shri Praveen Kumar, Scientist „B‟,
(ii) Shri Brij Mohan Singh Scientist „B‟,
(iii) Shri Amit Kumar Mall, Scientist „B‟,
(iv) Smt. Manju Kumari, Technical Assistant „A‟,
(v) Shri Subhendushree Routroy, Technical Assistant „A‟,
(vi) Sh. VV Apparao Killadi, Technical Assistant „A‟,
(vii) Shri Ankush Technician „A‟,
(viii) Shri Jhantu Kr. Maity, Technician „A‟ Thus, Shri Suresh Sharma acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant, caused financial loss to the Govt. (by facilitating irregular and illegal appointments) and committed grave misconduct in violation of Rule 3 of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964."
None of the officials mentioned above were working in any of the organizations to which the vacancies were circulated. Therefore, the selection of the candidates from the open market was unjustified and lacked transparency. Further, Shri Amit Kumar Mall had not completed his B.Tech course at the time of applying for the post. The application of Shri Ankush dated 21.05.07 was also time barred. It is also pertinent to mention that the applications of above mentioned candidates (except Shri Amit Kumar Mall and Shri V.V. Appara Khilladi) bear initials of Shri Suresh Sharma.
Shri Suresh Sharma being Director (Estt.-I) and dealing with the recruitment matters failed to bring out the glaring discrepancies in the 25 candidature of above mentioned eight persons and thus facilitated their illegal and irregular selection/appointment in NTRO.
Thus, Shri Suresh Sharma acted in a manner unbecoming of Government servant, caused financial loss to the Government (by facilitating irregular & illegal appointment) and committed grave misconduct in violation of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
23. It has already been observed that the activities of the first respondent are highly sensitive and confidential. Having regard to the nature of duties to be discharged by its employees, preference is given to induction on deputation after verifying the nature of duties discharged by the employees of other departments. Obviously for that reason, the vacancy notice was forwarded to various departments and Ministries. As a matter of fact, the induction of the applicant himself was by way of deputation. Notwithstanding such a practice and requirement, the applicant has chosen to pave the way for direct recruitment for quite a large number of employees. The record has also disclosed that the applicant has received applications of certain candidates beyond the stipulated dates. In the Statement of Imputation, the details of irregularities committed by the applicant are furnished.
26
24. In the report dated 07.10.2014, the IO has undertaken extensive discussion, running into 32 pages. The objection raised by the applicant that the disciplinary proceedings were not approved by the DA, was also discussed by the IO. The charge framed against the applicant was held proved. However, the retirement of the applicant, by the time the final decision was taken, warranted consultation with the UPSC, which in turn directed another inquiry. That was challenged by the applicant by filing OA No. 941/2017 and it was dismissed. After the subsequent inquiry, the report was submitted on 24.04.2017. The applicant was furnished the copy of the same and an opportunity was given to him at every stage. He went on raising objections which are totally untenable. The applicant is not able to point out any procedural defect in the inquiry or factual inaccuracy in the findings.
25. What we observed from theses two OAs is that the applicant has virtually taken the first respondent Organization for a ride, with his indisciplined behavior and aggressive attitude. He joined the organization at a time when it was taking shape and he became 27 instrumental in getting the organization busy to defend itself from his onslaught.
26. Apart from these two charge-sheets, he was served with three more and they were subject matter of quite a large number of judicial proceedings, both in the Tribunal and the High Court. The manner, in which he confronted with the respondents, can be discerned from that fact that in the first OA, the record runs to more than 500 pages, and the second OA is equally voluminous. Almost more than half of the documents are marked as confidential. He did not spare any activity of the organization or for that matter, its officers from his challenge and confrontation. The Tribunal as well as the Hon‟ble High Court has passed strictures for the delaying tactics adopted by him. The nature of the defence pleaded by him is totally untenable and outrageous. The applicant caused enormous hardship, inconvenience and harassment to the officers. He impleaded highly placed and senior officers of the organization as parties by name. Attributes, like discipline and restraint, appear to be not having any place in the dictionary of the applicant. It is not 28 difficult to imagine the amount of damage caused to the activities of the first respondent organization on account of the indisciplined behavior of the applicant. At one stage, we thought of imposing heavy costs on the applicant. However, in view of the fact that he is a retired employee, we dropped that idea.
27. We do not find any merit in these OAs and they are accordingly dismissed.
28. Pending MA, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Aradhana Johri) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) Member (A) Chairman /lg/