Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Sangeetha S Nair vs Union Of India on 15 May, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No.3529/2011
ORDR RESERVED ON: 17.04.2013
ORDR PRONOUNCED ON:15.05.2013
HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A)
Smt. Sangeetha S Nair,
Dancer,
Song & Drama Division,
Ministry of Information and Broad casting,
Soochna Bhawan,
Lodhi Road Complex,
New Delhi-110 003
.. Applicant
By Advocate Shri Pushkar Kumar Singh with Shri C. Hari
Shanker.
Versus
Union of India
Through The Secretary,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
A Wing, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi-110001
2. The Song & Drama Division,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Soochna Bhawan,
Lodhi Road Complex,
New Delhi-110 003
3. Smt. Pusha Mandal,
Dancer,
Song & Drama Division,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Through The Director.
Soochna Bhawan,
Lodhi Road Complex,
New Delhi-110 003
4. Smt. Urmila Srivastava
Song & Drama Division,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Through The Director.
Soochna Bhawan,
Lodhi Road Complex,
New Delhi-110 003
5. Shri Bhaskar Joshi,
Actor,
The Song & Drama Division
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
Through The Director.
Soochna Bhawan,
Lodhi Road Complex,
New Delhi-110 003
6. Shri Govind Prajapati,
Lineman (Sound),
The Song & Drama Division
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
Through The Director,
Soochna Bhawan,
Lodhi Road Complex
New Delhi-110003
7. Shri Mukesh
Lineman (Sound),
The Song & Drama Division
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
Through The Director,
Soochna Bhawan,
Lodhi Road Complex
New Delhi-110003
8. Shri Harsh Singh,
Stage Assistant
The Song & Drama Division
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
Through The Director,
Soochna Bhawan,
Lodhi Road Complex
New Delhi-110003
.. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri S.M. Arif for Respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri Padma Kumar and Shri B.K. Berera for
Respondents No.3 to 8.
O R D E R
Shri G. George Paracken:
The Applicants basic challenge in this OA is against the continuance of private Respondents No.3 and 4, namely, Smt. Pushpa Mandal and Smt. Urmila Srivastava as Dancers along with her and placing them above her in the seniority list. She has, therefore, challenged (i) the Order No.C-14013/5/09-Vig. dated 22.12.2010 whereby the disciplinary proceedings initiated them were dropped; (ii) the Seniority List in the grade of Dancer as circulated by Respondent No.2 on 07.01.2011 to the extent they were shown senior to her; and (iii) the memorandum No.23017/1/2-11-Admn.II dated 22.02.2011 whereby her representation with regard to the above issues has been rejected. She has, therefore, sought the following reliefs in this Original Application:-
(i) to quash and set aside impugned order dated 22.12.2010, insofar as it appoints Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 as Dancer in the Song & Drama Division, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (Respondent No. 2);
(ii) to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 22.12.2010, insofar as it drops the disciplinary proceedings, initiated against Respondent Nos 3 and 4;
(iii) to quash and set aside the impugned Seniority List dated 07.01.2011 insofar it shows the applicant below Respondent Nos 3 and 4 in the Seniority List of Dancers as on 01.01.2011in the office of Respondent No. 2 at S. No. 13, and delete the names of Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 from the said Seniority List;
(iv) consequently, to direct Respondent No 2 to assign, to the applicant, her proper seniority at S. No. 13;
(v) to quash and set aside the decision of Respondent No. 2 to dismiss the representation of the applicant vide Memorandum dated 22.02.2011 (Annexure A-3);
(vi) to grant costs of this OA to the applicant herein; and
(vii) to pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interests justice.
2. The facts of this case in brief are that the Applicant and the Private Respondents No.3 and 4 are presently working as Dancers with the 2nd Respondent, namely, the Song and Drama Division (SDD for short) under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of the Government of India. The 5th Respondent is working as an Actor, the 6th and the 7th Respondents are working as Lineman (Sound) and the 8th Respondent is working as Stage Assistant in the same Division. Though the Applicant has arrayed all the above mentioned private respondents in this OA, according to her, she is directly concerned with the appointments of only Respondents No.3 and 4 who belong to the category of Dancers to which she also belongs and whose names have been included in the impugned seniority list dated 07.01.2011 and placed them above her name. According to her, they were not qualified to be appointed against the said post in accordance with the relevant Recruitment Rules. Other private Respondents are arrayed as such because they are also similarly placed as Respondents No.3 and 4 in as much they are also allowed to continue in service in spite of the allegations against them by the official respondents themselves that they are not qualified to hold their respective posts.
3. According to the Seniority List of the Dancers dated 07.01.2011, while the Applicant is at Sl.No.15, the Private Respondents No.3 and 4 Smt. Pushpa Mandal and Smt. Urmila Srivastava are at Sl.No.11 and 12 respectively. Their seniority was determined on the basis of their respective dates of appointments. While Smt. Pushpa Mandal and Smt. Urmila Srivastava were appointed on 20.04.1999, the Applicant was appointed on 12.05.1999.
4. According to the Applicant, the fact that both Smt. Pushpa Mandal and Smt. Urmila Srivastava were appointed as Dancers without having the requisite qualifications came to her knowledge only when the official Respondents have issued the impugned order dated 22.12.2010 wherein it was indicated that the departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against them on 10.12.2008 were dropped on the ground that their cases are similar/identical to that of Shri Durga Prakash. The said order reads as under:-
No.C-14013/5/09-Vig Song and Drama Division Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Soochana Bhawan CGO Complex, New Delhi.
Dated:22.12.2010 O R D E R The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the following vide memoranda of charge dated 10.12.2008 are hereby dropped as their cases are similar /identical to the case of Sh. Durga Prakash, Stage Assistant, S&DD, Jammu Shri Bhaskar Joshi, Actor, S&DD, Hqrs., Shri Govind Prajapati, Lineman (Sound) Hqrs., Sh. Mukesh, Stage Assistant and Shri Harsh Singh, Stage Assistant, S&DD, Hqrs., New Delhi.
Smt. Pushpa Mandal, Dancer, S&DD, New Delhi.
Smt. Urmila Srivatava, Dancer, S&DD, New Delhi.
Sh. Sobhanram Arya, Stage Assistant, S&DD, New Delhi.
Sh.Munnilal Sharma, Stage Assistant, S&DD, New Delhi.
Sh. Jagdish Chander Arya, Stage Assistant, S&DD, New Delhi.
Sh. Bhupendra Singh, Stage Assistant, S&DD, Nainital.
Sh. Charan Singh, Stage Assistant, S&DD, New Delhi.
(L.R. Vishwanath) Director.
5. The contention of the Applicant is that even though it has been stated in the aforesaid order that the disciplinary proceedings have been dropped in respect of all the seven officials mentioned therein including Smt. Pushpa Mandal and Smt. Urmila Srivastava as in the case of Sh. Durga Prakash, Shri Bhaskar Joshi, Shri Govind Prajapati, Sh. Mukesh and Shri Harsh Singh, enquiry was actually held only in the case of Durga Prakash. After the enquiry was held in his case, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against him were proved partly. The operative part of the said enquiry report is as under:-
8.3 I have carefully considered the deposition made by Shri S.N.Magotra, Ex.Training and Placement officer, Ex. Workshop Superintendent, Ex. Project Officer Community Polytechnic Wing, Govt. of India, Ex. HoD Mech. Govt. Polytechnic, Jammu, presently Project Officer, Community Polytechnic (Govt. of India, Min. of H.R.D) Wing NITS Mira Sahib, Jammu. According to his deposition and the ITI syllabus for the course of Machinist, Shri Durgaprakash possess some knowledge in electrical wiring but not fully. Thus I am of the considered view that the charge against him is not fully proved. As regards experience Shri Durgaprakash, CO worked as casual electrician in S&DD for more than four years and acquired working knowledge in the Division. Thus, it can be said that he fulfills just more than 50% of the requirement for the post. The Selection Committee, which has gone through the application folder of Shri Durgaprakash ought not to have recommended his name after looking into his credentials with reference to the Recruitment Rules and advertisement for the post of Stage Assistant. But for this mess applications scrutinizing officer/Committee which issued call letter for interview, the Selection Committee and the Section Officer issuing appointment letter are responsible and not the CO himself. There is a mention in the statement of imputation of misconduct about the impropriety of the appointing authority. I find that in accordance with CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the appointing authority for Group C posts in S&DD is Deputy Director (Administration ) in S&DD. Though an authority other than the appropriate authority functioned as Appointing Authority, the CO cannot be held responsible for that and the responsibility lies on the authorities, who did not function judiciously and jumped into the statutory functions of other authorities. This being the fact, the Disciplinary Authority may like to take up the matter with the Ministry of I&B for taking a view and further necessary action accordingly on all those who were responsible for the irregularity in the appointment of Shri Durgaprakash.
9. Conclusion /Finding.
9.1 In the conspectus of the above analysis, facts and circumstances of the case, the Article of charge made against Shri Durgaprakash, Stage Assistant, Song & Drama Division, Jammu vide Memorandum of charge dated 27.11.2006 cannot be held proved fully and thus it gets proved only PARTLY.
6. However, after due consideration of the aforesaid report of the Enquiry Officer and other relevant documents, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the defence taken by Shri Durga Prakash was worth consideration and finally it was decided to drop the proceedings against him. The relevant part of the order of the order of the disciplinary authority dated 08.02.2007 is reproduced as under:-
3. And whereas the Inquiry Authority vide his report dated 27.12.2006 gave a finding that the charge against Shri Durgaprakash stands proved partly.
4. And whereas a copy of the report of inquiry was sent to Shri Durgaprakash vide Memorandum of even number dated 2.1.2007 and he was given an opportunity of making such submissions on the report of inquiry as he desired. His submissions on the Report of Inquiry were received vide his letter dated 31.1.2007, which was received in the office on 7.2.2007 though fax. The reply furnished by him reads as under:-
The Inquiring Authority in his inquiry report came to the conclusion that the charge made against me is party proved on the basis of the records of Inquiry. However, he ignored the fact the since I have working on the post of Stage Assistant to the satisfaction of my controlling officers, according to the requirements of the post and the Division, it cannot be held that the charge is proved partly. Since the Inquiring Authority agreed that I myself had not indulged in any fraud and manipulations as has been made out in the charge against me, it cannot be held that the charged is proved partly. Sir, I most respectfully submit that the Government of Indias Instruction No. 2 below the Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, warrants dismissal/removal of service in the event of charge proved. Even for argument sake, considering the report of the IA, no action can be taken against me for the simple reason that the charge against me has not been proved fully. Sir, kindly appreciate the fact that I cannot be thrown out of the service and put on the road for no fault of mine when I am discharging my duties honestly, sincerely to the satisfaction of my superiors. If at this stage, I am thrown out of the service, besides me, my wife, two children and my old parents who are all depending on me would be affect and we would remain breadless for no fault of mine.
5. And whereas on careful consideration of the records and the report of the Inquiring Authority , the undersigned finds that the defence pleas taken by Shri Durgaprakash as afore mentioned worth consideration. The mention made by him that when the charge against him is proved partly, penalty of removal/dismissal from Government service cannot be imposed on him is a tenable argument. Thus, the undersigned is of the considered opinion that the charge made against him be dropped and he be exonerated.
6. Now, therefore, it is ordered that the charge made against Shri Durgaparash is dropped and he is fully exonerated form the charge made against him. Since he is fully exonerated from the charge, the period of suspension spent by him from 8.1.2006 to 1.1.2007 is treated as qualifying service for all purposes under FR 54.
7. In the case of 3rd Respondent, Mrs. Pushpa Mandal, the Disciplinary Authority, vide Memorandum dated 10.12.2008, proposed to hold an enquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Article of Charge and the Statement of imputation of misconduct against her case were as under:-
Article of charge: Smt. Pushpa Mandal (Ms. Pushpa Arya before marriage) in her application dated 9.10.1988, in response to the advertisement No. 1/98-S&D issued by Song and Drama Division (S&DD) in the Employment News dated 26th September - 2nd October, 1998 for filing up various categories of staff artistes posts, claimed and gave a declaration that she fulfilled educational and other qualifications prescribed for the post of Dancer in S&DD and all the statements made in the application are true and complete to the best of her knowledge and belief and further that she understood that action could be taken against her by the Division, if she would be declared by them to be guilty of any type of misconduct. However, it has been found that she did not fulfill the professional qualifications required for the post of Dancer in S&DD to which she was appointed with effect from 20.4.1999. Her appointment is, therefore, in contravention of Recruitment Rules for the post of S&DD and it was result of wrong declaration given by her in the application form and undue favours shown to her buy the then Director, S&DD Shri Prem Matiyani. The act and conduct of Smt. Pushpa Mandal is in contravention of Rule 3 (1) (i) (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct ) Rules 1964. Because of her ineligibility for appointment, she is liable for disciplinary action as per Government of India Instruction No. 2 below the Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Statement of imputation of misconduct in her case was also reproduced as under:-
Article of charge: There is a scheme in Song & Drama Division (S&DD), Ministry of Information & Broadcasting according to which the Division empanels various categories for articles for engagement on casual occasional basis as and when it requires such artistes for its programme/ activity purposes. Smt. Pushpa Mandal was working with S&DD as empanelled artist at S&DD, Nainital, which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Lucknow Regional Centre.
In S&DD there is also a scheme of staff artistes who are regular civil servants. S&DD issued an advertisement for filling up various categories of staff artistes posts vide Advertisement No. 1/98-S&DD in Employment News dated 26 September - 2nd October, 1998. At this stage Smt. Pushpa Mandals empanelment was transferred from Nainital office to Hqrs. though there was no provision in the scheme of empanelled artistes for transfer one Region to another or to Hqrs.
Smt. Pushpa Mandal vide her application dated 9.10.1998 applied to a post of Dancer at Hqrs. Officer in response to the afore mentioned advertisement. In accordance with the Recruitment Rules (RRs) for the post of Dancer in S&DD and advertisement issued as per the said RRs, educational qualification of (1) Matriculation or its equivalent and (2) Diploma in dance from an institution recognized by Govt. or University or Certificate course in dancing of not less than ore years duration from a recognized dance institute with minimum two years experience of performances on the stage as a dancer of standing are essential. As per her application, Smt. Pushpa Mandal does not possess professional qualifications and she had only an experience of working as empanelled artist in S&DD for about two years and two months by then. Since she does not possess the second essential qualification (professional qualification) required for the said post, the Committee of two officers constituted for the purpose of scrutiny of applications of prospective candidates comprising (1) Smt. B Pal Chowdhury, Deputy Director, S&DD Kolkata and (2) Shri K.L.Das, then Administrative Officer, S&DD, Lucknow mentioned against the name of Smt. Pushpa Mandal in the list of eligible and ineligible candidates prepared by them for the post of Dancer clearly indicating therein that she was ineligible. A cross mark X accordingly was also put on the body of her application. However, she was called for interview to the post in contravention of the Recruitment Rules by showing undue favour to her by Shri P.M. George, then Deputy Director(Admn.) Shri P.M. George at the instance of Shri Prem Matiyani. A photocopy of her wedding card available in the records of office exhibits close association of Smt. Pushpa Mandal and her familys with Shri Prem Matiyani, then Director, S&DD who functioned as Selection Committee Chairman as well as Appointing Authority. The transfer of Shri Biswajit Mandal (husband of Smt. Pushjpa Arya), Performer from S&DD, Shimla to S&DD Hqrs. by shifting the post in violation of MoFs instructions just 10 days before her marriage with Shri Mandal also exhibits the association of Smt. Pushpa Mandal with Shri Prem Matiyani.
Ignoring the professional qualifications required for the post of S&DD the Selection Committee headed by Shri Prem Matiyani, then Director, S&DD recommended the name of Smt. Pushpa Manda for appointment to the post of Dancer. On 8.4.1999 Shri Matiyani considered his own recommendation given as the Selection Committee Chairman and approved it acting as Appointing Authority though he was not the competent authority. Smt. Mandal had not made any request for giving relaxation in qualifications. However, on 12.4.1999 Sh.P.M. George, then Deputy Director (Admn.) put up a note proposing to give relaxation in educational qualifications in respect of Smt.Pushpa Mandal and Shri Prem Matiyani approved the proposal submitted by Shri George, though it was not an appropriate stage and relaxation was not to be given to individual candidates /persons. Moreover, giving relaxing in professional qualification was uncalled for. He gave relaxation though he was not competent. On the same day Smt. Pushpa Mandal was then given offer of appointment vide memorandum No. A-12024/9/99 Admn.II in the offer of appointment given to her the condition for submitting the original certificates regarding qualifications was excluded. Consequently, she joined the post on 20.4.1999 without the requisite qualifications.
In March, 2006, an application under RTI Act, 2005 was received from one Shri Madan Lal of Delhi in the Min. of I&B. This application exposed the irregularity in the appointment of Smt. Pushpa Mandal. Shri Prem Matiyani obstructed the office from giving correct information to the Ministry of I&B to prevent disciplinary action against Smt. Pushpa Mandal. In this connection, he misled the Ministry that her appointment was made under the Scheme formulated in the Divisions for the empanelled artistes as per the directions of the Honble CAT, Principal Bench in case filed by the empanelled artists. This is contrary to the facts.
In the application form submitted by Smt. Push[pa Mandal she gave the particulars of her qualifications and gave a declaration wherein it is categorically stated as follows:-
I fulfill Educational and other qualification prescribed for the post and All the statements made in the application are true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that action can be taken against me by the Division, if I am declared by them to be guilty of any type of misconduct.
Perusal of the qualifications prescribed for the post to which she was appointed and the qualifications possessed by her indicates the fact that she was not eligible in terms of professional qualifications, but in her application she had stated that she fulfilled all the essential and educational qualifications prescribed for the post. The declaration given by her in the application is therefore appears to be contrary to the facts regarding her qualifications.
The above mentioned facts may prove that the appointment of Smt. Pushpa Mandal to the post of Dancer in S&DD of Min. of I &B was in contravention of the Recruitment Rules for the said post and she had violated Rule 3 (1) (i) and (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and she is liable for disciplinary action as per Government of Indias instruction No.2 below the Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
8. Similar charge and statement of imputation of misconduct were leveled against the 4th Respondent, Smt. Urmila Srivastava also. They were as under:-
Article of charge: Smt. Urmila Srivastava (Ms. Urmila Rajput before marriage) in her application dated 9.10.1988 , in response to the advertisement No. 1/98-S&D issued by Song and Drama Division (S&DD) in the Employment News dated 26th September 2nd October, 1998 for filing up various categories of staff artistes posts, claimed and gave a declaration that she fulfilled educational and other qualifications prescribed for the post of Dancer in S&DD and all the statements made in the application are true and complete to the best of her knowledge and belief and further that she understood that action could be taken against her by the Division, if she would be declared by them to be guilty of any type of misconduct. However, it has been found that she did not fulfill the professional qualifications required for the post of Dancer in S&DD to which she was appointed with effect from 20.4.1999. Her appointment is, therefore, in contravention of Recruitment Rules for the post of S&DD and it was result of wrong declaration given by her in the application form and undue favours shown to her buy the then Director, S&DD Shri Prem Matiyani. The act and conduct of Smt. Urmila Rajput-I is in contravention of Rule 3 (1) (i) (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct ) Rules 1964. Because of her ineligibility for appointment, she is liable for disciplinary action as per Government of India Instruction No. 2 below the Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Statement of imputation of misconduct in her case was also reproduced as under:-
Article of charge: There is a scheme in Song & Drama Division (S&DD), Ministry of Information & Broadcasting according to which the Division empanels various categories for articles for engagement on casual occasional basis as and when it requires such artistes for its programme/ activity purposes. Smt. Urmila Srivastava was working with S&DD as empanelled artist at S&DD, Nainital, which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Lucknow Regional Centre.
In S&DD there is also a scheme of staff artistes who are regular civil servants. S&DD issued an advertisement for filling up various categories of staff artistes posts vide Advertisement No. 1/98-S&DD in Employment News dated 26 September - 2nd October, 1998. At this stage Smt. Urmila Srivastavas empanelment was transferred from Nainital office to Hqrs. though there was no provision in the scheme of empanelled artistes for transfer one Region to another or to Hqrs.
Smt. Urmila Srivatava vide her application dated 9.10.1998 applied to a post of Dancer at Hqrs. Officer in response to the afore mentioned advertisement. In accordance with the Recruitment Rules (RRs) for the post of Dancer in S&DD and advertisement issued as per the said RRs, educational qualification of (1) Matriculation or its equivalent and (2) Diploma in dance from an institution recognized by Govt. or University or Certificate course in dancing of not less than ore years duration from a recognized dance institute with minimum two years experience of performances on the stage as a dancer of standing are essential. As per her application, Smt. Urmila Srivastava does not possess professional qualifications and she had only an experience of working as empanelled artist in S&DD for about two years and two months by then. Since she does not possess the second essential qualification (professional qualification) required for the said post, the Committee of two officers constituted for the purpose of scrutiny of applications of prospective candidates comprising (1) Smt. B Pal Chowdhury, Deputy Director, S&DD Kolkata and (2) Shri K.L.Das, then Administrative Officer, S&DD, Lucknow mentioned against the name of Smt. Pushpa Mandal in the list of eligible and ineligible candidates prepared by them for the post of Dancer clearly indicating therein that she was ineligible. A cross mark X accordingly was also put on the body of her application. However, she was called for interview to the post in contravention of the Recruitment Rules by showing undue favour to her by Shri P.M. George, then Deputy Director(Admn.) Ignoring the professional qualifications required for the post of S&DD the Selection Committee headed by Shri Prem Matiyani, then Director, S&DD recommended the name of Smt. Urmila for appointment to the post of Dancer. On 8.4.1999 Shri Matiyani considered his own recommendation given as the Selection Committee Chairman and approved it acting as Appointing Authority though he was not the competent authority. Smt. Urmila had not made any request for giving relaxation in qualifications. However, on 12.4.1999 Sh.P.M. George, then Deputy Director (Admn.) put up a note proposing to give relaxation in educational qualifications in respect of Smt.Urmial and Shri Prem Matiyani approved the proposal submitted by Shri George, though it was not an appropriate stage and relaxation was not to be given to individual candidates /persons. Moreover, giving relaxing in professional qualification was uncalled for. He gave relaxation though he was not competent. On the same day Smt. Urmila was then given offer of appointment vide memorandum No. A-12024/9/99 Admn.II in the offer of appointment given to her the condition for submitting the original certificates regarding qualifications was excluded. Consequently, she joined the post on 20.4.1999 without the requisite qualifications.
In March, 2006, an application under RTI Act, 2005 was received from one Shri Madan Lal of Delhi in the Min. of I&B. This application exposed the irregularity in the appointment of Smt. Urmila Srivastava . Shri Prem Matiyani obstructed the office from giving correct information to the Ministry of I&B to prevent disciplinary action against Smt. Urmila Srivastava. In this connection, he misled the Ministry that her appointment was made under the Scheme formulated in the Divisions for the empanelled artistes as per the directions of the Honble CAT, Principal Bench in case filed by the empanelled artists. This is contrary to the facts.
In the application form submitted by Smt. Urmila Srivastava she gave the particulars of her qualifications and gave a declaration wherein it is categorically stated as follows:-
I fulfill Educational and other qualification prescribed for the post and All the statements made in the application are true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that action can be taken against me by the Division, if I am declared by them to be guilty of any type of misconduct.
Perusal of the qualifications prescribed for the post to which she was appointed and the qualifications possessed by her indicates the fact that she was not eligible in terms of professional qualifications, but in her application she had stated that she fulfilled all the essential and educational qualifications prescribed for the post. The declaration given by her in the application is therefore appears to be contrary to the facts regarding her qualifications.
The above mentioned facts may prove that the appointment of Smt. Urmila Rajput to the post of Dancer in S&DD of Min. of I &B was in contravention of the Recruitment Rules for the said post and she had violated Rule 3 (1) (i) and (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and she is liable for disciplinary action as per Government of Indias instruction No.2 below the Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
9. The Applicants challenged aforesaid charge sheet before this Tribunal vide OA No.2618/2006 and connected case but this Tribunal refused to entertain it as the impugned order being an interlocutory one in the disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, the said OA was dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2007 having its operative part as under:-
10. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that no illegality or misconduct has been shown by the applicants vis-avis the action taken by the respondents at this initial stage. Hence, without interfering at this interlocutory stage, we dispose off this OA with a direction to the respondents to complete these proceedings within six months. The applicants are also directed to bring the facts to their defence as placed before the Tribunal before the respondents and to fully co-operate in the disciplinary proceedings. Nothing shall be construed as a finding on merits of the case.
11. The OA is disposed off with the directions as laid down in para 10 above. No costs.
10. The Applicants challenged the aforesaid order of this Tribunal dated 21.03.2007 vide C.W.P. No. 3748/2007 on the ground that the charge issued to him was on the basis of a pre-determined mind. Accordingly, the High Court permitted the Original Respondents to withdraw the existing charge sheet and to issue fresh charge sheet with imputations in accordance with law. Accordingly, the said Writ Petition was disposed of. Therefore, the Official Respondents issued separate fresh charge sheets to the Respondents 3 and 4 vide Memorandum dated 10.12.2008. The charge sheet against Respondent No.3 was as under:-
Article of Charge Smt. Pushpa Mandal (Ms. Pushpa Arya before marriage) in her application dated 09.10.1998, in response to the advertisement No.1/98-S&D issued by Song and Drama Division (S&DD) in the Employment News dated 26th September 2nd October, 1998 for filling up various categories of staff artistes posts, claimed and gave a declaration that she fulfilled educational and other qualifications prescribed for the post of Dancer in S&DD and all the statements made in the application are true and complete to the best of her knowledge and belief and further that she understood that action could be taken against her by the Division, if she would be declared by them to be guilty of any type of misconduct. However, it has been found that she did not fulfill the professional qualifications for the post of Dancer in S&DD to which she was appointed with effect from 20.04.1999. Her appointment is therefore in contravention of Recruitment Rules for the post of Dancer in S&DD and it was result of wrong declaration given by her in the application form and undue favours shown to her by the then Director, S&DD Shri Prem Matiyani. The act and conduct of Smt. Pushpa Mandal is in contravention of Rule 3 (1)(i) (ii) and (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Because of her inability for appointment, she is liable for disciplinary action as per Government of India instruction No.2 below the Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Similar charge against the Respondent No.4 is also reproduced herein below:-
Article of Charge Smt. Urmila Srivastava (Ms. Urmila Rajput before marriage) in her application dated 09.10.1998, in response to the advertisement No.1/98-S&D issued by Song and Drama Division (S&DD) in the Employment News dated 26th September 2nd October, 1998 for filling up various categories of staff artistes posts, claimed and gave a declaration that she fulfilled educational and other qualifications prescribed for the post of Dancer in S&DD and all the statements made in the application are true and complete to the best of her knowledge and belief and further that she understood that action could be taken against her by the Division, if she would be declared by them to be guilty of any type of misconduct. However, it has been found that she did not fulfill the professional qualifications for the post of Dancer in S&DD to which she was appointed with effect from 20.04.1999. Her appointment is therefore in contravention of Recruitment Rules for the post of Dancer in S&DD and it was result of wrong declaration given by her in the application form and undue favours shown to her by the then Director, S&DD Shri Prem Matiyani. The act and conduct of Smt. Urmila Rajput is in contravention of Rule 3 (1)(i) (ii) and (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Because of her inability for appointment, she is liable for disciplinary action as per Government of India instruction No.2 below the Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
11. The Respondents No. 3 & 4 again challenged aforesaid fresh charges before this Tribunal vide OA Nos. 655/2009 and 951/2009. They were also dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2000 and its operative part is as under:-
17. Even otherwise Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 has held :
14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or chargesheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.
15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet.
16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.
18. In view of settled law and in order to maintain uniformity, we hold, no interference is called for in the case at this stage. However, respondents are directed to complete the enquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving full opportunity to the applicant to defend themselves. Of course, applicants are also directed to cooperate with the respondents because that would be in their own interest. Respondents shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the basis of evidence, which comes on record.
19. With the above directions, these OAs stand disposed of. No costs.
Let a copy of this judgment be kept in other OAs also.
12. According to the learned counsel for the Applicant unless an enquiry is held in the case of each of those officers including Smt. Pushpa Mandal and Smt. Urmila Srivastava, the actual facts would not have come to light and, therefore, the enquiry proceedings against them could not have been dropped. Further, according to the learned counsel for the Applicant, if proper enquiries were held against Smt. Pushpa Mandal and Smt. Urmila Srivastava, they would have proved that the charges against them were correct as they still do not have the requisite qualifications for appointment as Dancers in accordance with the relevant Recruitment Rules and their appointments were cancelled. Consequently, the Applicants position in the seniority list would have gone up.
13. The Applicant has stated that she as well as Respondents No.3 and 4 are governed by the Staff Artistes Recruitment Rules and the essential qualifications required for a Dancer are as under:-
(i) matriculation or its equivalent, and Diploma in dance from an institution recognized by Government or University or Certificate course on dancing of not less than one years duration from a recognized dance institute with minimum two years experience of performance on the stage as dancer of standing.
However, the Respondents No.3 and 4 did not posses the qualification at (ii) supra. In other words, neither of them have to their credit, (a-) Diploma in dance from an institution recognized by Government or University, Or Certificate course on dancing of not less than one years duration from a recognized dance institute, Or 2 years experience of performance on the stage as a dancer of standing.
Rather respondent No. 3 has merely had an M.A., and Respondent No. 4 has only an Intermediate degree, to their credit. The charge against her also says that she had no professional qualifications but only had the experience of working as empanelled artist for about 2 years and 2 months. Further, two officers which constituted the Committee scrutinized her certificates and declared her ineligible. However, she managed to get the appointment due to favoritism shown by the then Director Shri Prem Matiyani and the then Dy. Director (Admn.) Shri P.M. George. There is also the allegation that she furnished false declaration about her qualifications to secure the appointment. Exactly similar charges are also made against 4th Respondent.
14. In the cases of Respondent No.5 Shri Bhaskar Joshi, Respondent No.6 Shri Govind Prajapati, Respondent No.7 Shri Mukesh and Respondent No.8 Shri Harsh Singh also, the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by the official respondents. After detailed enquiry in their cases, charges were also found to be proved and they had been dismissed from service by the orders of the disciplinary authority as upheld by the Appellate Authority vide orders on different dates. Shri Bhaskar Joshi challenged the said orders in the disciplinary proceedings before this Tribunal vide OA 1880/2009. This Tribunal held that the allegations of fraud and manipulation on the part of the Applicant was not maintainable and remitted the case back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass fresh orders. While so doing, the Disciplinary Authority was also asked to keep the order in the case of Shri Durga Prakash in mind. The relevant part of the said order dated 25.5.2010 is reproduced as under:-
11. The facts revealed in the inquiry may be relevant to prove the charge against the Applicant that he did not have technical qualification and experience but these facts do not show Applicants involvement in the fraud. Of course he is beneficiary of the selection process. But it cannot be concluded that he got his appointment fraudulently by manipulating the things. In view of above though it is correct that Applicant did not possess the technical qualification and experience required for the post but there was no evidence at all to suggest that Applicant had manipulated his appointment. In these circumstances, we do not understand as to how the Respondents could hold Applicant responsible for manipulation and fraudulent action. Fraud and manipulation has two players - and there is quid Proquo or unethical deals between both players. In the absence of the link, the fraud and manipulation angle falls flat.
12. In view of the fact that Shri Durgaprakashs case was referred to by the counsel for the Applicant and has not been denied by the counsel for Respondents, either in the written affidavit filed by the Respondents or at the hearing stage, we , therefore, have taken note of the said order . There seems to be prima facie some similarity between the present case and the case of Durgaprakash. The facts reveal that the Applicant, though not qualified , as per technical qualification and experience, his application was processed, he was called for interview, and after interview he was offered the appointment as Lineman which he joined. Though his selection is de horse the RR, it is not our interest to protect the irregularly selected and illegally appointed persons in the post, but when the discrimination is being cited between the similarly situated persons as has been submitted by the Applicant in the OA that similarly placed Durgaprakash, Stage Assistant of Sound and Drama Division though did not fulfill professional and technical qualifications, his case was carefully considered and the charges framed against him which were similar to that of the charges framed against the Applicant, were dropped and Durgaprakash was exonerated. Hence, Durgaprakash is continuing in the service. The Respondents are, therefore, directed to examine the present case and ensure that discrimination is not done to the Applicant.
13. In view of the total facts and circumstances of the case and our above discussions, we quash the orders dated 22.08.2008 and 15.01.2009 on the ground mentioned within and remit the matter back to the authorities to pass fresh orders in the case without alleging fraud and manipulation on the part of Applicant. While doing so, the Respondents would keep in their view the orders passed by them in a similar disciplinary case relating to Durgaprakash. This exercise may be completed within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Applicant.
15. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed fresh order on 29.09.2010 holding that the charge against Shri Bhaskar Joshi was not proved. The relevant part of the Disciplinary Authoritys order is as under:-
WHEREAS in the backdrop of similar charges w.r.t Shri Durga Prakash and Shri Bhaskar Joshi, the law of natural justice, explicitly provides that the findings of inquiry report in the case of Shri Durga Prakash holds equally good for Shri Bhaskar Joshis case also.
AND WHEREAS I as the disciplinary authority, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case all the case records and in the light of the directions of Honble CAT, New Delhi in OA No.1880/2009 filed by Shri Bhaskar Joshi disagree with the findings of the Inquiring Authority and hold that the article of charges framed against Shri Bhaskar Joshi as not proved. Also, keeping in view the final orders passed in similar disciplinary case against Shri Durgaprakash, I have come to the conclusion that the charges leveled against Shri Bhaskar Joshi should be dropped.
16. Similarly, Shri Govind Prajapati also filed OA No. 1881/2009 and it was disposed of vide order dated 21.5.2010 and the Disciplinary Authority passed final order dropping the charge vide order dated 18.11.2010. Similar order dated 26.12.2008 has been passed by the Tribunal in OA No.1628/2010 and the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 18.11.2010, in the case of Shri Mukesh. Shri Harsh also filed OA No. 2247/2007 and by order dated 11.09.2008, this Tribunal remitted his case also to the Disciplinary Authority. Shri Harsh Kumar challenged the aforesaid order of this Tribunal remitting the case to the Disciplinary Authority before the Honble High Court of Delhi vide CWP No.156/2009 arguing that this Tribunal should have allowed his OA. The High Court, partly allowing the said Writ Petition vide order dated 5.5.2009, granted further opportunity for him to be heard. The relevant part of the said order is as under:-
This writ petition is, accordingly partly allowed. Concomitantly the orders dated 11.09.2008 passed by the Tribunal is modified and the directions upholding removal of the petitioner is set aside and the disciplinary authority is directed to pass fresh orders keeping in view the component of charge which is proved.
We are conscious of the fact that the Tribunal upheld the order of removal on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible and not possessing the basic qualifications for the post. However, it would be necessary to take note of the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, in this behalf, that in many similar cases relaxation in the Recruitment Rules is given and such irregular appointments are regularized and those persons are allowed to continue. We are of the opinion that the disciplinary authority before passing the order, shall give an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and necessary orders shall be passed within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No costs.
17. Again after detailed consideration of his case, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 25.09.2009 again removed him from service. Since the Appellate Authority remitted the case back to the Disciplinary Authority and vide order dated 22.12.2010 the Disciplinary Authority passed the common order dated 16.12.2010 as in the case of Private Respondents.
18. The Respondents No.3 and 4 have also challenged the charge sheet dated 8.11.2006 before the Tribunal vide OA No.2618/2006. The Official Respondents objected to the very maintainability of the said OA itself stating that this Tribunal has no power to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings at the interlocutory stage. Accordingly, vide order dated 21.3.2007, the Tribunal disposed of the said OA with the direction to complete the enquiry within 6 months. They filed Writ Petition (C) No.3748/2007 against the said order of this Tribunal and the High Court disposed of the same vide order dated 26.9.2008 noting the submissions of the official respondents that they will withdraw the existing charge and issue a fresh charge. Thereafter, the official Respondents issued fresh charge on 10.12.2008. They challenged the said charges also before this Tribunal vide OA No. 655/2009 and OA No. 951/2009 respectively and they were disposed of, vide order dated 15.3.2010, refusing to interfere. Thereafter, vide impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 22.12.2010 the Disciplinary Authority dropped the charges in their case also.
19. The Applicant made a representation dated 31.01.2011 to the Respondents No.2 in this regard but the same was rejected vide impugned Annexure A-3 Memorandum dated 22.02.2011. The learned counsel for the Applicant has also submitted that the Applicant and other two private respondents No.3 and 4 have been appointed as Dancers in the year 1999 and the Applicant had no opportunity of being aware of the fact that the appointments of the private respondents were in violation of the Recruitment Rules as they did not have the requisite qualification. For the same reason, she did not have any opportunity to challenge their appointment at the relevant time. She came to know about the aforesaid facts only when the Respondents issued the impugned order dated 22.12.2010, there is no delay in filing this Original Application.
20. The official respondents have filed their reply stating that the appointments of the Applicant and private respondents were made on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted for his purpose. They have also stated that in the garb of seniority, the Applicant is trying to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings of the private respondents which have already been concluded as per the rules and procedure on the subject. Further, according to them, she has no reason to meddle with the disciplinary proceedings in respect of her colleagues. On the other hand, her aim is only to settle personal scores with the private respondents and to make allegations against the senior officers. Therefore, they have submitted that there is no merit in the contention of the Applicant in this OA.
21. The Private Respondents 3 to 8 have also filed their replies. The learned counsel for the Respondents No.5 to 8 have submitted that they have been wrongly impleaded in this OA as the Applicant has no grievances against them. Therefore, she has no locus standi to file this OA making them as respondents.
22. In the rejoinder to the reply filed by official respondents, the Applicant stated that the official respondents are opposing the present OA on the sole ground that there is no scope for the Applicant to meddle with the decisions to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the private respondents. However, according to her, the appointments of private respondents No.3 and 4 to the post of Dancers despite their ineligibility and dropping the proceedings against them by the official respondents have adversely affected her seniority in the grade of Dancers. She has also stated that the ineligible persons have no right whatsoever to continue in service that too at her cost. Therefore, she has argued that she has got locus standi to challenge dropping of disciplinary proceedings against the private respondents. She has also stated that the official respondents could not explain in their reply as to how the cases of the private respondents No.3 and 4 are similar or identical to the case of Shri Durgaprakash in whose case the proceedings were dropped considering the finding in the enquiry. Without justifying their action with bona fide reasons, they cannot contest the OA and justify the appointment of ineligible persons by dropping the proceedings against them whimsically and arbitrarily.
23. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant, Shri C. Hari Shankar with Shri Pushkar Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the official Respondents, Shri S.M. Arif, the learned counsel for the private Respondents, Shri Padma Kumar and Shri B.K. Berera. As observed in the preface paragraph of this order, the basic grievance of the Applicant is against the continuance in service of the private Respondents, Smt. Pushpa Mandal and Smt. Urmila Srivastava who have been presently placed above her in the seniority list of Dancers by Respondent No.2, on the ground that they are not qualified to occupy that post as they do not have the prescribed essential qualifications for it as per the relevant Recruitment Rules. Her further grievance is that even though the official Respondents themselves have charged them that they do not have the requisite qualifications and accordingly initiated disciplinary proceedings against them, they have dropped those proceedings for extraneous reasons.
24. We should say at the outset that, generally speaking, an employee has no right or locus to call in question the decisions of the authorities in the disciplinary proceedings in respect of a fellow employee. It is completely within the domain of the disciplinary/appellate authority to decide whether act of an employee amounts to misconduct and if so what kind of proceedings, minor penalty proceedings or major penalty proceedings, are to be initiated against him/her. Again, it is for the said authorities to decide whether the employee concerned is to be punished or not and if he/she is to be punished, what penalty has to be imposed upon him/her. The fellow employees have no role in the said decision-making process and, therefore, it cannot be challenged. But the scenario in this case is quite different. The basic question herein is the authority of Respondents No.3 and 4 to hold the post of Dancer and to continue in that post. There cannot be any valid objection to the proposition that an employee not qualified to be appointed as per the relevant Recruitment Rules, even if appointed for whatever reasons, cannot be allowed to continue in service to the disadvantage of fellow employees. It is seen in this case that the official respondents themselves have made allegations against Respondents No.3 and 4 that they do not fulfill the qualifications as required under the Recruitment Rules for appointment to the post of Dancer and they secured their appointments on the basis of their misrepresentation and false declarations with the connivance of the concerned authorities of the Respondent-Department at the relevant time. When such allegations have been made by the Respondent-Department against the Respondents No.3 and 4, it is in its own interest to prove it in a duly constituted departmental enquiry proceedings. It is also in the interest of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that they come out clean from the allegations. But, obviously if the allegations are proved, such employees have no place in service. Further, the officers who have shown favoritism in their appointments will also become answerable. The Apex Court in Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others AIR 1966 SC 828 observed that The right that can be enforced under Art. 226 also shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified." Moreover, we find that the Applicant has a direct interest in the matter. The Respondent-Department has placed the Respondents No.3 and 4 above her in the seniority list. Hence, her locus standi to file this OA cannot be questioned.
25. To say the least, the Respondent Departments action dropping the departmental proceedings against the private Respondents stating that they are identical to the cases of Shri Durga Prakash and Others is absolutely arbitrary and factually incorrect. In the case of Shri Dura Prakash, the official respondents charge sheeted him and subjected him to the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He passed the acid test and came out clean. Thereafter, the Respondents have rightly dropped the charge against him. However, in the case of Respondents No.5 and 6, departmental proceedings were initiated. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges made against them have been proved. Based on the said findings they have also been dismissed from service. They challenged the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in their case before this Tribunal as well as the High Court. On the directions of this Tribunal as upheld by the High Court, the Disciplinary Authority re-looked their cases in terms of their decision in Durgaprakashs case (supra) and held that charges were not proved in their cases as they were similar to the case of Durgaprakash. Accordingly, the charges against them have been dropped. None of their colleagues have challenged the aforesaid decision and they continue in service. But in the case of the Respondents No.3 and 4, they challenged the very charges made against them before this Tribunal vide OA Nos.2618/2006 and OA No.2703/2006 but this Tribunal, vide order dated 21.3.2007, refused to interfere in the matter at the interlocutory stage and directed the official Respondents to complete the enquiry proceedings against them within 3 months. The Respondents No.3 and 4 challenged the aforesaid order before the High Court vide WW.P. ( C) 3748/2007 and the High Court, vide its order dated 26.09.2008, on consideration of the submission of the official respondents that they would withdraw the existing charge and issue a fresh charge sheet against them, dismissed the said Writ Petitions as withdrawn. Thereafter, the official respondents withdrew the charge and issued a fresh charge vide Memorandum dated 10.12.2008. Applicants again challenged the fresh charge sheet issued to them before this Tribunal in OA 655/2009 (supra) and OA No.951/2009 (supra) but this Tribunal again, vide order dated 15.3.2010, refused to interfere with their case at the interlocutory stage in view of the settled law and in order to maintain uniformity. But without continuing the proceedings against them, the official respondents vide impugned order dated 22.10.2010, unilaterally and arbitrarily dropped the charges against them dated 10.12.2008 itself on the ground that their cases were identical to that of Shri Dura Prakash and Others. As stated earlier, though the charge against him was that he did not fulfill the professional/technical qualifications required for the post of Stage Assistant, an enquiry was held in his case and the Disciplinary Authority was convinced that the aforesaid charge was not proved. Therefore, the charge against him was dropped. But in none of the other cases including those of the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, the departmental proceedings initiated against them were brought to their logical conclusion. Therefore, they are still under the cloud of misconduct of securing the job by misrepresentation and filing false declaration.
26. From the above position, it is seen that that charge against the Respondents No.3 and 4 that they do not have the basic educational qualifications to hold the post of Dancer still subsists. In the case of Smt. Pushpa Mandal, the specific charge against her is that she did not fulfill the professional qualifications required for the post of Dancer in S&DD to which she was appointed with effect from 20.4.1999. It is further stated in the Statement of Imputations against her that in accordance with the Recruitment Rules (RRs) for the post of Dancer in S&DD and advertisement issued as per the said RRs, educational qualification of (1) Matriculation or its equivalent and (2) Diploma in dance from an institution recognized by Govt. or University or Certificate course in dancing of not less than ore years duration from a recognized dance institute with minimum two years experience of performances on the stage as a dancer of standing are essential. As per her application, Smt. Pushpa Mandal does not possess professional qualifications and she had only an experience of working as empanelled artist in S&DD for about two years and two months by then. As stated above, in the case of Durga Prakash, the allegations/charge made against him have been proved wrong and hence he has been allowed to continue in service. In the case of Respondents No.3 and 4, charges are yet to be proved or disproved. Therefore, both the cases are not comparable. Moreover, Shri Dura Prakash was a Stage Artist and the Applicant and Respondents No.3 and 4 are Dancers and their requisite qualifications are also different.
27. In the above facts and circumstances of this case, we partly allow this OA to the extent of 2nd relief prayed for in this OA. Consequently, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22.12.2010 insofar as it drops the proceedings against the private respondents No.3 and 4 when the allegation against them that they do not possess the requisite qualification as required under the Recruitment Rules to hold the post of Dancer has not been disproved through a regularly conducted departmental proceedings. We, therefore, direct the official respondents to continue with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them from the stage of issuing the memorandum dated 10.12.2008 proposing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them in terms of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. As the charges against them are more than 4 years old, it is in their own interest, the interest of the official respondents and in the interest of all concerned including the Applicant, the proceedings be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Other reliefs sought in this OA are dependent on the result of the disciplinary proceedings against Respondents No.3 and 4 now ordered to be continued against them. As regards Respondents No.4 to 8 are concerned, as the Applicant has not sought any reliefs against them, no directions are required to be given.
28. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G. GEROGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rakesh