Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
B P Meena vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 17 May, 2023
1
O.A. No.1406/2023
Item No.4
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.1406/2023
Wednesday, this the 17th day of May, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
B P Meena, IRS (Retd.)
Aged about 69 years (senior citizen)
s/o late Padma Ram
r/o E-42, Lal Bahadur Nagar
Jaipur, Rajasthan 302 001
(Retired as CIT, Group A)
...Applicant
(Mr. S K Srivastava and Ms. Shubhi Srivastava and Ms.
Garima Singh, Advocates)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001
2. The Secretary
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001
3. The Chairman, CBDT
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001
4. Central Vigilance Commission
Through its Secretary
CGO Complex, A Wing, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi - 110 023
5. Central Bureau of Investigation
Through its Director
2
O.A. No.1406/2023
Item No.4
Plot No.5 B, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi - 110 003
6. The DGIT (Vig) & CVO, CBDT
2nd Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003
7. Sri Mukeh Varma, IRS
Pr. DIT & Ld. Inquiry Officer
c/o Chairman, CBDT
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001
(to be served through respondent No.3)
8. Ms. Anuja Sarangi, IRS
c/o Chairman, CBDT
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001
(to be served through respondent No.3)
...Respondents
(Mr. S N Verma, Advocate)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Mr. Justice Ranjit More:
This O.A. has been filed by Mr. B P Meena, IRS (Retired), challenging the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 and seeking setting aside and quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 19.01.2009 as also the inquiry report dated 30.07.2022.
2. Heard Mr. S K Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. S N Verma, learned counsel for respondents at the admission stage itself. We also perused the pleadings.
3O.A. No.1406/2023 Item No.4
3. The applicant had earlier filed O.A. No.3314/2022, challenging the charge memorandum dated 19.01.2009, issuance of charge sheet, initiation of inquiry and the inquiry report itself. This Tribunal, vide order dated 15.11.2022, granted leave to the applicant to withdraw the O.A. with liberty to make a comprehensive representation to the disciplinary authority. It was also directed that the respondent No.1 shall decide the representation on its own merit and in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. In compliance of this, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking order dated 18.04.2023, which is also under challenge in the present O.A.
4. It was argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the charge memorandum and the inquiry report both be set aside and quashed on various grounds listed in the O.A. He has also placed reliance upon the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his arguments:
i. M V Bijalani v. Union of India & others, (2006) 5 SCC 88, 4 O.A. No.1406/2023 Item No.4 ii. Moni Shankar v. Union of India & others, (2008) 3 SCC 484, iii. Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, iv. Kanwar Natwar Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2010) 13 SCC 255, v. T Takano v. SEBI & another (C.A. No.487/2022) decided on 18.02.2022, vi. Union of India v. B V Gopinath, etc. (2014) 1 SCC 351, vii. Union of India v. N P Dhamania, (1995) Suppl. (1) SCC 1, viii. Union of India & another v. Bhaskarendu D Majumdar, (2010) 9 SCC 38, ix. Major General H M Singh, VSM v. Union of India & another, (2014) 3 SCC 670; and x. N K Singh v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 98. 5 O.A. No.1406/2023
Item No.4
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that the applicant was issued the impugned charge memorandum and the inquiry report has already been submitted on 30.06.2022. The applicant has submitted his representation and the disciplinary proceedings are yet to be completed. It was further submitted that in terms of the settled law in a catena of judgments by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the charge memorandum or the inquiry report itself is no cause for interference by the Tribunal as no final order has yet been passed.
6. It is also the contention of the respondents that the applicant was served with a charge memorandum issued by the competent authority, the inquiry has been completed extending reasonable opportunities following the principles of natural justice and that the disciplinary authority has yet to take the final action; and, therefore, it is absolutely premature at this stage for the applicant to file the instant O.A.
7. Learned counsel for applicant reiterated the points raised in the representation made by the 6 O.A. No.1406/2023 Item No.4 applicant on 15.10.2022 in terms of the observations made by the Tribunal in the earlier O.A. Detailed reply has been given by the respondents covering all the points raised by the applicant in the representation, which also factor in the relief being sought in the present O.A.
8. The applicant has been issued the charge memorandum and a detailed inquiry was conducted. He was extended reasonable opportunities following the principles of natural justice. On completion of the inquiry, copy was forwarded to the applicant and he has already submitted his representation. It is now up to the disciplinary authority to consider the inquiry report, the reply of the applicant and take a final decision.
9. We are aware of the settled law in this matter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through various judgments. This takes us to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584, wherein it has been held that the Courts will not act as an Appellate Court and 7 O.A. No.1406/2023 Item No.4 reassess the evidence led in the domestic inquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be ground for interfering with the findings in departmental inquiries.
10. Further, the Hon'ble Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 has held as under:-
"13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience." 8 O.A. No.1406/2023
Item No.4
11. In a recent judgment dated 21.09.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 5848 of 2021 titled Union of India & others v. Dalbir Singh, the Hon'ble Apex Court having relied upon all the previous judgments, specifically considered the judgment in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (supra), which laid down the broad parameters for the exercise of judicial review, quoted above.
12. As far as challenge to the charge memorandum is concerned, the parameters of judicial review by the Tribunal and the Courts have been further defined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhas Chandra Mirdha (Civil Appeal No.2333/2007) decided on 29.05.2012, wherein it has been held as follows:
"13. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that chargesheet cannot generally be a subject matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the chargesheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a 9 O.A. No.1406/2023 Item No.4 belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings."
13. We have taken note of the relied upon judgments by learned counsel for the applicant, the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents and the above quoted judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is evident that no final decision has yet been taken in the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. In terms of the charge memorandum issued to the applicant, a departmental inquiry has already been concluded and further proceedings are in progress. At this stage, no interference for judicial review is warranted in the present O.A. We are of the view that the action of the respondents in continuing with the disciplinary proceedings does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The impugned order dated 18.04.2023 is a reasoned and speaking order and is passed in accordance with law.
14. It is also observed that in an earlier O.A. No.3314/2022 filed by the applicant before this 10 O.A. No.1406/2023 Item No.4 Tribunal, the main relief sought by him was for quashing and setting aside the impugned charge sheet dated 19.01.2009 and the inquiry report dated 30.06.2022. Both these points have been raised yet again in the present O.A.
15. In the abovementioned facts and circumstances, we are of view that the disciplinary proceedings do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and, therefore, no interference is needed at this stage. The O.A. is thus devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Mohd. Jamshed ) ( Justice Ranjit More )
Member (A) Chairman
May 17, 2023
/sunil/