Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
A K Sharma vs Union Of India on 26 April, 2025
Reserved on 24.04.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 26th day of April, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 1485 of 2010
Arvind Kumar Sharma son of Late Rajendra Prasad Sharma
Resident of Village and Post Kail District - Badaun.
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri M K Upadhyay
Versus
1. Union of India, Through the Secretary Ministry of
Communication Sansad Marg New Delhi.
2. Post Master General Barely Region U.P. Circle Barely.
3. Director Postal Services Barely Region Barely.
4. Superintendent of Post Office Badaun Division Badaun.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Rajni Kant Rai
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri M K Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
"(i) To quash the punishment order dated 28.09.1999, appellate order 22.03.2000 and order dated 13.07.2000 of the reviewing authority, passed by the respondent no.
4, 3 and 2 respectively and applicant be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
RITU RAJ SINGH
1|Page
(ii) to grant an further relief / direction order as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant.
(iii) to award costs in the favour of the applicant."
3. A compendium of the facts narrated in the OA is that the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned orders by way of which punishment of removal of service has been imposed upon him. The applicant has alleged the impugned orders to be illegal, perverse and vitiated and claims them to have been passed in violation of the prescribed rules. Through the OA, the applicant has contended that he has been wrongly fabricated with multiple charges like misappropriation of funds, unbecoming of government servant and several others. Applicant has also contended that he was subjected to an illegal inquiry which was conducted in utter violation of prescribed provisions. Respondents' allegation is that the applicant has been involved in a series of offences that label him unbecoming of government servant and subsequent to a proper inquiry, appropriate punishment has been imposed upon him. The inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer in accordance with stipulated rules and provisions to which no infirmity or illegality can be attributed. By way of the OA, the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned orders and a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service along with back wages and all consequential benefits like seniority, etc.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that allegations leveled against the applicant are false and are not proved. Findings arrived at by the inquiry officer are perverse. The prosecution witnesses examined during the inquiry themselves have not stated any fact in support of the allegation leveled against the applicant. The inquiry officer while appreciating the statement of the witness has not gone through the statement of defence witnesses. It was further RITU RAJ SINGH
2|Page argued that procedure prescribed for conducting the inquiry has not been adhered to and thus there is violation of principal of natural justice. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the applicant argued that to clarify the fact, learned counsel for the respondents was directed to file the affidavit as to whether delinquent employee has examined himself as witness, if not, then whether he has been interrogated under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 or not. Referring to the Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed on 17.04.2025 on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant further argued that nothing was mentioned in it regarding the examination of the charged official as witness nor anything regarding interrogation under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules. Learned counsel for the applicant further referred to the annexures annexed with the aforesaid supplementary affidavit and argued that respondents have annexed only the defence brief and reply to the charge sheet. No statement recorded during inquiry proceedings of the charge official as witness has been filed nor the interrogation made by the inquiry officer under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has been followed. Since mandatory provision provided under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has not been adhered to thus, entire disciplinary proceedings stands vitiated and order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revision authority will also become illegal. Punishment imposed upon the applicant is liable to be set aside and impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that specific allegation was leveled against the applicant in the charge sheet regarding misappropriation of amount of the account holders which has been proved by the witnesses during the inquiry. Opportunity of hearing was given to the charged official at all levels. He has also availed the same and thus there has not been any procedural flaw. Inquiry proceedings will not vitiate due to non-interrogation of the charged official under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Thus, referring to the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents RITU RAJ SINGH
3|Page argued that there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders. The OA being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.
7. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant wherein the facts as narrated in the OA have been reiterated. To substantiate his case, learned counsel for the applicant has placed the reliance upon following case law:
i. Judgment dated 18.09.1957 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs T R Varma reported in 1957 AIR 882.
ii. Judgment dated 05.09.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7448 of 2011 titled The National Textile Corporation ltd. Vs Naresh Kumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors.
iii. Judgment dated 02.02.1998 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ministry of Finance And Another Vs S B Ramesh reported in 1998 SCC (L&S) 865.
8. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the documents on record and also perused the judgments relied upon.
9. Before dealing with submissions raised across the bar, we find it expedient to quote the substance of the allegations leveled against the applicant:
Four Article of Charges were leveled against the applicant:
Article 1: That he presented balance of only Rs 650.80 in place of actual Rs. 8340.25 of cash and stamp while acting on the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master before the Sub Divisional Inspector.
Article 2 and 3: That he had not done the entries of two months installments in the journals.
Article 4: That he got certain amount from one person to open TD Account but he did not open the same and not did the entries.
RITU RAJ SINGH
4|Page
10. Since an issue regarding non-compliance of the provision of Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has been raised on behalf of the applicant for the first time in the OA at the time of argument. Although, no such plea was taken in the departmental appeal or revision and thus, question is as to whether such plea could be entertained in the OA for the first time or not. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Naresh Kumar Badrikumar Jagad (supra) has held as under:
"14. There is no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that a new plea cannot be taken in respect of any factual controversy whatsoever, however, a new ground raising a pure legal issue for which no inquiry / proof is required can be permitted to be raised by the court at any stage of the proceedings."
If the proposition laid down in the aforesaid quoted case is taken into consideration to decide this issue, it is clear that although factual controversy cannot be raised at subsequent stage if not already raised at earlier stages, yet a purely legal issue for which no inquiry or proof is required can be permitted to be raised before the Court at any stage of proceedings. If such is the position, issue of non-compliance of the provision of Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 can be raised in the OA at the time of argument also, if not raised earlier and it can be taken into consideration by the Tribunal.
11. Now the question is as to whether compliance of provision of Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is mandatory or not. It has already been established in the instant case on the basis of pleadings exchanged across the bar that the C.O. has not examined himself as witness during enquiry and the Inquiry Officer has not interrogated the applicant under Rule 14 (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In that situation, interrogation of the C.O. under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was mandatory. For this purpose, it would be in the fitness of things to refer to the judgment passed by RITU RAJ SINGH
5|Page the Apex Court in the case of S B Ramesh (supra) the relevant portion of which is quoted herein below:
"It is necessary to set out the portions from the order of the Tribunal which gave the reasons to come to the conclusion that the order of the Disciplinary Authority was based on no evidence and the findings were perverse. The Tribunal, after extracting full the evidence of SW-1. the only witness examined on the side of the prosecution. and after extracting also the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer dated 18.6.91. observed as follows:-
"After these proceedings on 18.6.91 on the Enquiry Officer has only received the brief from the PO and then finalised the report. This shows that the Enquiry Officer has not attempted to question the applicant on the evidence appearing against him in the proceedings dated 18.6.91. Under Sub-Rule 18 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. It is incumbent on the Enquiry authority to question the officer facing the charge, broadly on the evidence appearing against him in a case where the officer does not offer himself for examination as witness. This mandatory provision of the CCS (CCA) Rules has been lost sight of by the Enquiry authority. The learned counsel for the respondents argued as the applicant did not appear in response to notice. It was not possible for the Enquiry authority to question the applicant. This argument has no force because. on 18.6.91 when the inquiry was held for recording the evidence in support of the charge, even if the Enquiry officer has set the applicant ex-parte and recorded the evidence, he should have adjourned the hearing to another date to enable the applicant to participate in the enquiry hereafter/or even if the inquiry authority did not choose to give the applicant an opportunity to cross-examine the witness examined in support of the charge, he should have given an opportunity to the applicant to appear and then proceeded to question him under sub-rule 18 of Rule 14 of CCs (CCA) Rules. The omission to do this is a serious error committed by the enquiry authority. Secondly, we notice that the enquiry authority has marked as many as 7 documents in support of the charge. while SW-1 has proved only one document: namely, the statement of Smt. K.R. Aruna alleged to have been recorded in his presence. How the other documents were received in evidence are not explained either in the report of the Enquiry authority or in the proceedings. Even if the documents which were produced along with the charge sheet were all taken on record. unless and until the applicant had requested the Enquiry officer to mark certain documents in evidence on his side. the enquiry authority had no jurisdiction in marking all those documents which he had called for the purpose of defending himself on the side of the applicant while he has not requested for making of these documents on his side. It is seen that some of these documents which is marked on the side of the defence not at the instance of the applicant. has been made use of by the enquiry authority to reach a finding against the applicant. This has been accepted by the disciplinary authority also. We are of the considered view that this is absolutely irregular and has prejudiced the case of the applicant. These documents, which were not proved in accordance with law should nor have been received in evidence and that, any inference drawn from these documents is misplaced and opposed to RITU RAJ SINGH
6|Page law, we further find that the enquiry authority as well as, the disciplinary authority have freely made use of the statement alleged to have been made by the statement alleged to have been made by Smt Kr Aruna in the presence of SW1 and it was on that basis that they reached the conclusion the applicant was living with Smt. K.R. Aruna and that, he was the father of the two children on Smt. K.R. Aruna. The S.W.1 in his deposition which is extracted above, has not spoken to the details contained in the statement of Smt. K.R. Aruna which was marked as Ex.1. Further it is settled law that any statement recorded behind the back of a person can be made use of against him in a proceeding unless the person who is said to have made that statement is made available for cross- examination, to prove his or her veracity. The disciplinary authority has not even chosen to include Smt. K.R. Aruna in the list of witnesses for offering her for being cross-examined for testing the veracity of the documents exhibited at Ex.1 veracity of the documents exhibited at Ex.1 which is said to be her statement.
Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the enquiry authority as well as, the disciplinary authority have gone wrong in placing reliance on Ex.1 which is the alleged statement of Smt. K.R. Aruna without offering Smt. K.R. Aruna as a witness for cross- examination. The applicant's case is that the statement was recorded under coercion and duress and the finding based on this statement is absolutely unsustainable as the same is not based on legal evidence. The other documents relied on by the Enquiry authority, as well as by the disciplinary authority for reaching the conclusion that the applicant and Smt. K.R. Aruna were living together and that they have begotten two children have also been not proved in the manner in which they are required to be proved."
Similarly, it will also be in the fitness of things to refer to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 10.03.2011 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 215 of 2009 titled Union of India and Anr Vs D S Manchanda, which is as follows:
"18. The next contention on behalf of the petitioner is about the noncompliance of the Rule 14(18) of CCS(CCA) Rules. According to the petitioners, Rule 14(18) was substantially complied with. Perusal of the record, however, reveals that it is an admitted case that the respondent did not examine himself as a witness. Since the respondent had not examined himself as witness, it was incumbent upon the enquiry officer to put evidence adduced against the respondent during the enquiry to him in compliance of Rule 14(18) of CCS(CCA) Rules. The said rule had been enacted with a view that whatever evidence comes in the enquiry, explanation may be sought to rebut the circumstances, which would be in consonance with the principle of reasonable opportunity and audi alterm partum as inbuilt in the principles of natural justice. On perusal of the record, the order dated 6th April 1998 is categorical in stating that the respondent had neither examined any defense witnesses nor had he offered RITU RAJ SINGH
7|Page himself as a witness. Thereafter the respondent was generally examined by the Inquiry Officer, however whether or not the circumstances that came in evidence against the respondent was put to him has not been shown. In similar matters involving the same purchases, the charged officers were only put the charges which were framed against the charged officer. In the circumstances, in absence of any thing it is to be inferred that the evidence which was recorded during the enquiry was not put to the respondent in compliance with rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
19. Perusal of Rule 14(18) clearly reveals that it is obligatory upon the enquiry authority to question the delinquent officer on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstance. As there is no reference to the evidence brought on record or circumstances appearing against the applicant, hence the general examination, a copy of which has also not been produced despite ample opportunity to the petitioner, it is apparent there was not a valid compliance of Rule 14(18) of the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965.
20. Provisions analogous to Rule 14(18) of CCS(CCA) Rule exist in Rule 19 (21) of Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1958. In the matter of Moni Shankar V. Union of India, 2008 (1) AJW 479, an enquiry proceeding was conducted in which the following questions were put to the Charged Officer:
"please state if you plead guilty?" ; "Do you wish to submit your oral or written arguments? ; "Are you satisfied with the enquiry proceeding" and "Can I conclude the enquiry?", were held to be not in compliance of Rule 9(21) of Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1958 as such type of questions did not reveal the evidence adduced in support of charges against the charged officer.
21. In Ministry of Finance v. S.B.Ramesh, (1998) 3 SCC 227 the Supreme Court had held the Rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1985 to be mandatory. The Apex Court had upheld the decision of the Tribunal holding that the order of the Disciplinary Authority was based on no evidence and that the findings were perverse, on the reasoning that even if the Enquiry Officer had set the applicant ex parte and recorded the evidence, he should have adjourned the hearing to another date to enable the applicant to participate in the enquiry thereafter. Or even if the Enquiry Authority did not choose to give the applicant an opportunity to cross-examine the witness examined in support of the charge, he should have been given an opportunity to the applicant to appear and then proceeded to question him under Sub-rule (18) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The omission to do this was construed to be a serious error committed by the Enquiry Authority. This also cannot be disputed that if the charged officer has examined himself as a witness then it will not be obligatory to examine the charged officer under Rule 14(18) of CCS(CCA) Rules. However, in the absence of any defense RITU RAJ SINGH
8|Page statement by the charged official, it was mandatory on the part of the enquiry officer to examine him under Rule 14(18), and the noncompliance of which will vitiate the enquiry proceedings."
Since provisions provided under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 have not been followed during the course of inquiry, taking into consideration the law laid down by the respective court(s) in the case of SB Ramesh (supra) and D S Manchanda (supra), we are of the considered view that the inquiry officer has erred in conducting the inquiry. If the charged official has not examined himself, it is mandatory for the inquiry officer to examine / interrogate him under the aforesaid CCS (CCA) Rule placing all the incriminating materials collected during the inquiry before him. Since in the present case, the aforesaid mandatory provision has not been followed during the course of inquiry, the inquiry cannot be said to have been done in accordance with stipulated rules and regulations. Therefore, the inquiry proceedings will be vitiated on this ground and the order(s) passed subsequent to it by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revision Authority shall become illegal and are liable to be set aside.
12. Accordingly, the instant original application is allowed. The Impugned Order(s) dated 28.09.1999, 22.03.2000 and 13.07.2000 passed by the respondent no. 4, 3 and 2 respectively are hereby quashed and set aside and following directions are issued to the respondents' authorities:
i. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant into service with all consequential benefits including granting him seniority for the period he stayed out of service pursuant to the impugned orders and thereby considering the period he spent out of service as "period spent on duty". However, since no actual duties were performed by the applicant for the aforesaid period, he will not be entitled for any back wages. The aforesaid exercise must be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Furthermore, in case respondents deem RITU RAJ SINGH
9|Page fit, they may conduct de novo inquiry from the stage of Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and also in accordance with other prescribed rules and regulations and taking into consideration the observations made in this judgment.
ii. However, if the applicant has already attained the age of superannuation, in that event, since he cannot be reinstated, the respondents are directed to refix his pension taking into consideration that the impugned orders were never issued and the entire period he remained out of service as "period spent on duty". Furthermore, all the consequential retiral benefits as accrue shall also be paid to him subsequent to refixation of his pension. This exercise must be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the aforesaid payment shall attract the simple interest of 6% per annum.
13. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
10 | P a g e