Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mrs. Lalita Pali, Lecturer (Id) vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi (Through The Lt. ... on 6 March, 2007
ORDER
P. Shanmugam, J. (Chairman)
1. Applicant has challenged the Memorandum rejecting her representation dated 18.7.2006 for change of inquiring officer.
2. Applicant is working as Lecturer (ID) in the Meerabai Polytechnic. Two articles of charges were framed against her dated 23.8.2005. It is alleged, as per first article of charges, that she has submitted fake mark-sheet and degree certificate of M.A. in order to get Senior Lecturer-ship and financial upgradation. As per the statement of imputation in the second article of charges, it is alleged that she has deliberately absented herself from duty w.e.f. 22.10.2003. The proceedings were initiated as per the Central Vigilance Commission's advice. Inquiry Officer was appointed as per order dated 22.11.2005 and preliminary hearing was fixed for 23.12.2005.
3. According to applicant, she made a representation dated 18.7.2006 requesting for change of inquiry officer but the said request has been turned down by the impugned Memorandum. Though the applicant has not furnished a copy of representation dated 18.7.2006, but she had referred to another representation dated 4.4.2006 in which she had alleged that inquiry officer has engaged her in a conversation and expressed his pre-judge views on the matter and that he had not obliged the applicant on that he had marked the presence of the applicant as absence.
4. Admittedly, the inquiry is still at a preliminary stage and no evidence has been recorded.
5. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is pre-mature to hold that inquiry officer is prejudice against applicant.
6. The second submission of learned Counsel of applicant is that third respondent is not the competent authority to reject her representation. It is seen that third respondent is the competent authority who appointed the inquiry officer vide order dated 28.11.2005 (Annexure A/3) and the same authority has rejected the applicant's representation.
7. For all the above reasons, we do not find any merit in the case, as no ground is made out to interfere with the inquiry proceedings, and the same is accordingly dismissed.