Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
A K Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 9 May, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A.No.2828/2015
M.A.No.1359/2016
Monday, this the 9th day of May 2016
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Mr. A K Singh
s/o Mr. Ganga Prasad Singh
aged about 53 years
presently working as
Senior Public Prosecutor
CBI, Posted at Delhi
r/o Flat No.143, MBK Apartments
Plot No.6, Sector 13, Dwarka
New Delhi-78
..Applicant
(Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocate)
Versus
1. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT)
Through its Secretary
North Block, New Delhi
2. Central Bureau of Investigation
Through its Director
North Block, New Delhi
..Respondents
(Mr. Hanu Bhasker, Advocate)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Justice Permod Kohli:
The applicant, who is working as Senior Public Prosecutor in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), was associated with the investigation of cases relating to 2G Spectrum. He was served with a memorandum of charge dated 31.01.2014 for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2 1965. The allegation against him, as appears from the articles of charge, is that he connived with Mr. Sanjay Chandra, one of the accused in 2G Spectrum Scam case. The memorandum of charge is subject matter of challenge in the present O.A.
2. One of the grounds of challenge is non-approval of the charge sheet by the competent authority. Considering this ground, on 29.04.2016, the respondents' counsel sought time to produce the relevant record relating to approval of the charge sheet by the competent authority. Today Mr. Hanu Bhasker, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has produced file No.221/12/2013-AVD-II (B) from Department of Personnel & Training containing the proceedings for approval of the charge sheet. From the record, we find that the articles of charge were approved by the competent authority on 18.01.2014 / 24.01.2014. In view of the compliance of Rule 14 (3) of CCS (CCA) Rules, we find that the ground urged to challenge the memorandum of charge is not available to the applicant. No other serious challenge seems to have been made to the impugned memorandum of charge.
3. During the course of hearing, it is, however, emerged that the disciplinary proceedings are not moving forward despite the appointment of the Inquiring Authority and the Presenting Officer by the respondents vide order dated 22.09.2014.
4. Mr. Nilansh Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has vehemently argued that the delay in conduct of the inquiry has been caused due to non-supply of the additional documents and refusal of the permission to inspect the additional documents. He has referred to an 3 application dated 09.04.2014 sent to the Director, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, indicating some documents to be inspected. We have perused this application wherein the applicant has asked for various files without specifically delineating therein the specific documents, to enable the respondents to permit him the inspection and/or furnishing the copy thereof. We find that this application is too vague to permit the inspection/supply of additional documents.
5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that though he has filed the statement of defence in response to the charge sheet, however, some of the documents are necessary and relevant for effective adjudication of the disciplinary proceedings. Mr. Bhasker, learned counsel, on the contrary, has submitted that the delay in completion of the disciplinary proceedings is attributable to the applicant on account of his non-cooperative conduct. He has further submitted that the applicant has been allowed inspection of the original record. In response to this submission, learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant needs to inspect some more documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Keeping in view the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and on perusal of the record before us, we dispose of this O.A. with the following directions:-
i) Since the Inquiry Officer is seized of the inquiry, the applicant is at liberty to make an appropriate application indicating the specific 4 documents, inspection whereof is required by him. On such application being received, the Inquiry Officer will examine the same and if he finds the genuineness and the relevancy of the documents, he may permit the inspection thereof, within two weeks from the date of receipt of such application from the applicant. In the event the Inquiry Officer is of the opinion that the inspection sought for is not relevant, he may reject the prayer for inspection by recording reasons.
ii) On completion of inspection if allowed, the Inquiry Officer will proceed to hold the inquiry on day-to-day basis, if possible. In any case, the inquiry shall be concluded by the Inquiry Officer within a period of four months from the date of completion of inspection or his refusal for such inspection in accordance with mandate of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules and submit his report to the Disciplinary Authority.
iii) On receipt of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority shall complete its action on the inquiry report in accordance with Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules and pass consequential order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the inquiry report.
iv) The applicant shall fully cooperate in the inquiry. If any delay is caused, which is attributable to the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority shall be at liberty to approach this Court, seeking extension of time, which shall be considered on its own merit.
No costs.
The original record is returned to Mr. Hanu Bhasker, learned counsel for respondents.
5M.A. No.1359/2016
In view of the aforesaid Order passed in O.A., this M.A. is rendered infructuous.
( K.N. Shrivastava ) ( Justice Permod Kohli ) Member (A) Chairman May 9, 2016 /sunil/