Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Anil Kumar Srivastava vs General Manager, N E Rly on 1 June, 2023
OA No.1302 of 2013
Reserved
(On 25.05.2023)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Dated: This the _01st _ day of __June__ 2023
Original Application No. 1302 of 2013
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Shrivastava, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Anil Kumar Srivastava, S/o late Madan Lal, a/a 44 years, R/o House No.
383 Swaroop Nagar, Chahhabai, District, Bareilly.
. . .Applicant
By Adv : Shri A.D. Singh
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, N.E. Railway, Izzat Nagar Bareilly.
3. Senior Divisional Electric Engineer, N.E. Railway, Izzat Nagar
Bareilly.
4. Assistant Divisional Electric Engineer, N.E. Railway, Izzat Nagar
Bareilly.
5. Chief Electric Engineer, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur.
. . .Respondents
By Adv: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai
ORDER
By Hon'ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A) This OA, under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 is filed seeking relief to quash the impugned orders dated 31.08.2010, 04.03.2009, 11.02.2011 and 10.04.2013 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits and to pass any other order as deemed fit and to award cost.
2. The fact of the applicant is that a CBI case No. 168 of 2003 was filed (CBI vs. Anil Kumar Srivastava) before Judicial Special Magistrate, Page 1 of 16 OA No.1302 of 2013 CBI, Deharadun against the applicant for preparing the forged order of Hon'ble High Court, Nainital and finally exparte decided the same on 04.08.2003. The applicant states that forged order was not prepared by him and due to enmity someone had prepared and presented it before the authorities. He further says that respondent No. 4 has removed the applicant from service vide order dated 31.12.2003 in pursuance of the said order dated 04.08.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun in case No. 168 of 2003.
3. The applicant filed an appeal before respondent No. 3 in 2004 and his punishment was reduced in the appellate order from removal to reduction in the Helper Grade II in the minimum pay of Rs. 2550 - 3200.
The applicant further says that respondents served illegally a memo of charge sheet dated 05.10.2006 to the applicant for unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. 12.01.2006 and applicant submitted a representation dated 25.05.2007 and the inquiry officer has conducted the inquiry and submitted his report on 10.04.2008 and exonerated the applicant. But disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No. 3 imposed the punishment order dated 08.09.2008 to the applicant for reduction of pay as Helper Grade II.
4. Then without issuing any notice and opportunity the respondent No. 3 ordered for damage rent recovery from the applicant from 09.07.2010 amounting to Rs. 95,151/- and ordered to recover Rs. 2815/-
per month from his salary, but under the rule the whole pay of the employee cannot be recovered as the applicant is Class IV employee with merger salary. Hence, under RTI he asked information on 25.07.2013 as to under what rule the whole pay was being recovered. The applicant made a complaint on 12.08.2010 before the Superintendent of Police, Bareilly stating all the reasons that he will be committing suicide on Page 2 of 16 OA No.1302 of 2013 12.08.2010 with his family due to torture and harassment made by the Sr. DPO Izzatnagar and Senior DEE, Izzatnagar (Respondent No. 3) and after the death of the complainant, his said complaint should be treated as First Information Report against the aforesaid officers. The applicant was arrested by the Police and produced before City Magistrate, Bareilly on 13.08.2013 and he made statement before the Police that he will not commit suicide and then he was released. He went to his office to join alongwith order of the bail but he was not permitted to join on 16.08.2010.
But he was subsequently given an order dated 31.08.2010 of removal from service, the said order did not comply with the provisions of the Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution of India in the letter and spirit and wrongly used the power under Section 14 (II) of Railway Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and illegally removed the applicant from service and hence, it is liable to be quashed. The applicant appealed before the respondent No. 3 on 12.01.2004, the said appeal was also rejected and subsequently his revision petition was also rejected on 11.02.2011. Then his review petition was also rejected on 10.04.2013.
5. The applicant claims that he was excellent in work and had been given an award on 19.05.2010, whereas on 31.08.2010 he was removed under Rule 14 (II) of Railway Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968 which was arbitrary. No charge sheet had been given to the applicant and no reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given and the said order has not complied with the provision of Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the same has to be set aside as punishment cannot be imposed to the employee without giving any charge sheet, notice and opportunity of being heard, before passing the punishment order. Hence, the impugned orders may be set aside and the applicant should be given all consequential benefits.
Page 3 of 16 OA No.1302 of 20136. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein the basic fact of the applicant has not been denied. They submitted that as the applicant had forged two letters relating to transfer and one was from Hon'ble Chief Justice Shri P.C. Verma of High Court of Uttrakhand and the said letters were confirmed to be forged. The applicant was convicted and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five months. Hence, penalty of removal was imposed on him and he was removed from service on 31.12.2003. On his appeal, Railway administration took a lenient view and put him back in employment, and reduced him in rank instead of removing him from service. But after joining, again the applicant had been absenting himself, so a major charge sheet was given to him on 05.10.2006 and during the inquiry proceedings the applicant created doubts and confusion about inquiry officer and he did not cooperate with the inquiry proceedings.
7. Disciplinary authority vide his order dated 08.09.2008 imposed punishment to the applicant to reduce his basic pay further. As he overstayed in the house to which he was not eligible, damage rent was to be recovered from him and orders were passed accordingly. But the applicant again started creating confusion by sending letters to various authorities that he will commit suicide alongwith his family on 13.08.2010.
As the applicant was a habitual delinquent who has already twice been imposed penalty with under Disciplinary Rules and was also convicted criminally and was in the habit of alleging against all the authorities and threatening them with suicide and other consequences. Hence, considering the behavior of the applicant the disciplinary authority came to a conclusion that conducting inquiry against the applicant under Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, 1968 was not practicable.
Page 4 of 16 OA No.1302 of 20138. The disciplinary authority has strictly followed the provisions of Rule 14 (II) of Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968 and passed the order of removal and for the same reason his appeal, revision and review have also been dismissed by the departmental officer and as there is no merit in the case of the applicant, hence, they argued that the OA of the applicant should be dismissed.
9. The applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit in which he reiterates his facts as in the OA. He emphasizes that 90% of his salary was being illegally deducted, so he had no means of survival and so he said in helplessness that there was compelling circumstances to tell that he will commit suicide, but he retracted on counseling, and the same cannot be made a ground for his dismissal, and that also without conducting any inquiry. Hence, his OA should be allowed and impugned orders should be quashed.
10. The case came up for last hearing on 25.05.2023. Shri A.D. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri D. Tiwari brief holder of Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents were present and heard. We have gone through the record and have carefully examined the rival contentions.
11. The general fact of the case is not disputed. The main contention of the applicant is that the respondents have not strictly gone through the provisions of Rule 14 (II) of Discipline and Appeal, Rules, 1968 of the department which pertains to not holding inquiry in certain cases or passing order and imposing penalty without dispensing with the inquiry.
Further, the case of the applicant is that the impugned orders mostly Page 5 of 16 OA No.1302 of 2013 quotes instances of the earlier two disciplinary inquiries in which he was imposed penalty with and one criminal case in which he was convicted and he underwent punishment and for the same charges he cannot be made liable and accountable for the second time and imposed with some new penalty of removal as it will amount to double jeopardy and being punished twice for the same offence / misconduct. The case of the applicant is further that the second inquiry which was conducted, the inquiry officer had exonerated him but the disciplinary authority imposed penalty on him, which was not correct.
12. If we peruse the impugned order we find that it is a detailed order dated 31.08.2010 wherein at the end at page 30, third paragraph it mentions following:-
"उऩयोक् त से स्ऩष्ट है कक न केवर श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव ऩूवव भें गॊबीय आयोऩों के दोषी ऩाए गए हैं, फल्कक जफ बी इनके ववरुद्ध इन आयोऩों की जाॉच की जाती है , तो मह प्रकिमा भें सल्मभलरत सबी प्रशासननक अधधकारयमों को डयाने के लरए गैयकानूनी कामव कयने से बी फाज नह ॊ आते हैं। उऩयोक्त आरोक नें श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव/ हे कऩय-I अधीन सीसेइ/वव/फये र लसट को ये र सेवा भें आगे फनाए यखना अवाॊछनीम होगा तथा श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव के व्मवहाय ऩय ववचायोऩयाॊत मह ऩामा गमा है कक इस भाभरे भें ये र सेवक (अनुशासन एवॊ अऩीर) ननमभ, 1968 भें ददए गए प्रवाधानें के अनुरूऩ जाॉच कयना व्मवहारयक नह ॊ है । अत: ये र सेवक (अनुशासन एवॊ अऩीर) ननमभ, 1968 के ननमभ 14(II) भें द गमी शल्क्तमों का प्रमोग कयते हुए अधोहस्ताऺय एतद् द्वाया श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव, हे कऩय -I अधीन सीननमय सेक्शन इॊजीननमय/ ववद्मुत/ फये र लसट को ये र सेवा से ददनाॊक 31.08.2010 से ननष्कालसत (Remove) कयता है ।"
13. On simple perusal of this shows that this is the only paragraph which mentions of that as per Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, Rule 14 (II) is applied to the case and the disciplinary authority has come to a conclusion that he can exercise the powers given herein in this particular case, reason being that accused Anil Kumar Srivastava had earlier very serious charges against him, which were proved, and after due process of inquiry, and in those inquiry the accused Page 6 of 16 OA No.1302 of 2013 Government servant was intimidating all officers associated with those inquiry. Hence, it is not found to continue Anil Kumar Srivastava further within the employment of Railways and so they conclude that inquiry in this case is not practicable. The applicant relied on the order in OA No. 1011 of 2018 dated 03.01.2023, wherein the said rules are quoted, which reads as under:-
"13. In this case, the order of removal Annexure A-1 has been passed by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction given under Rule 14 of Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The aforesaid Rule is quoted hereunder:-
"14- Special Procedure in certain cases:- Notwithstanding anyting contained in Rules 9 to 13:-
(i) where any penalty imposed on a Railway servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in these rules;
(iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in the rules;
The disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders thereon as it deems fit:"
14. In the aforesaid Rule 14(ii), the world used "it is not reasonably practicable to hold". The Rule 14(ii) is analogous to the Article 311(ii)(b) of the Constitution of India. As per the aforesaid provision, if the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reason to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practical to hold an inquiry, then the authority is empowered to pass such orders as it deems fit.
15. In the case of Union of India vs. Tulsi Ram reported in 1985 (4) SCC 395, the Five Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the scope and ambit of Article 311(ii)(b) of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court culled out the parameter for revoking the said power and also the scope and extent of judicial review in such matter. Para 130, 133, 134 and 138 are relevant, which are quoted hereunder:-
"130. The condition precedent for the application of Clause (b) is the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that "it is not reasonably practicable to hold" the inquiry contemplated by Clause (2) of Article 311. What is pertinent to note is that the words used are "not reasonably practicable" and not "impracticable".
According to the Oxford English Dictionary "practicable" means "Capable of being put into practice, carried out in action, effected, accomplished, or done; feasible". Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines the word "practicable" inter alia as meaning "possible to practice or perform : capable of being put into practice, done or accomplished : feasible". Further, the words used are not "not practicable" but "not reasonably practicable". Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines the word "reasonably" as "in a reasonable manner : to a fairly sufficient extent". Thus, whether it was practicable to hold the inquiry or not must be judged in the context of whether it was reasonably practicable to do so. It is not a total or absolute impracticability which is required by Clause (b).
Page 7 of 16 OA No.1302 of 2013What is requisite is that the holding of the inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation. It is not possible to enumerate the cases in which it would not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry, but some instances by way of illustration may, however, be given. It would not be reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry where the government servant, particularly through or together with his associates, so terrorizes, threatens or intimidate witnesses who are going to give evidence against him with fear of reprisal as to prevent them from doing so or where the government servant by himself or together with or through others threatens, intimidates and terrorizes the officer who is the disciplinary authority or member of his family so that he is afraid to hold the inquiry or direct it to be held. It would also not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry where an atmosphere of violence or of general indiscipline and insubordination prevails, and it is immaterial whether the concerned government servant is or is not a party to bringing about such an atmosphere. In this connection, we must bear in mind that numbers coerce and terrify while an individual may not. The reasonable practicability of holding an inquiry is a matter of assessment to be made by the disciplinary authority. Such authority is generally on the spot and knows what is happening. It is because the disciplinary authority is the best judge of this that Clause (3) of Article 311 makes the decision of the disciplinary authority on this question final. A disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the Department's case against the government servant is weak and must fail. The finality given to the decision of the disciplinary authority by Article 311(3) is not binding upon the court so far as its power of judicial review is concerned and in such a case the court will strike down the order dispensing with the inquiry as also the order imposing penalty. The case of Arjun Chaubey v. Union of India and Ors., is an instance in point. In that case, the appellant was working as a senior clerk in the office of the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Northern Railway, Varanasi. The Senior Commercial Officer wrote a letter to the appellant calling upon him to submit his explanation with regard to twelve charges of gross indiscipline mostly relating to the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent. The appellant submitted his explanation and on the very next day the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent served a second notice on the appellant saying that his explanation was not convincing and that another chance was being given to him to offer his explanation with respect to those charges. The appellant submitted his further explanation but on the very next day the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent passed an order dismissing him on the ground that he was not fit to be retained in service. This Court struck down the order holding that seven out of twelve charges related to the conduct of the appellant with the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent who was the disciplinary authority and that if an inquiry were to be held, the principal witness for the Department would have been the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent himself, resulting in the same person being the main accuser, the chief witness and also the judge of the matter.
133. The second condition necessary for the valid application of Clause (b) of the second proviso is that the disciplinary authority should record in writing its reason for its satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry contemplated by Article 311(2). This is a Constitutional obligation and if such reason is not recorded in writing, the order dispensing with the inquiry and the order of penalty following thereupon would both be void and unconstitutional.
134. It is obvious that the recording in writing of the reason for dispensing with the inquiry must precede the order imposing the penalty. The reason for dispensing with the inquiry need not, therefore, find a place in the final order. It would be usual Page 8 of 16 OA No.1302 of 2013 to record the reason separately and then consider the question of the penalty to be imposed and pass the order imposing the penalty. It would, however, be better to record the reason in the final order in order to avoid the allegation that the reason was not recorded in writing before passing the final order but was subsequently fabricated. The reason for dispensing with the inquiry need not contain detailed particular, but the reason must not be vague or just a repetition of the language of Clause (b) of the second proviso. For instance, it would be no compliance with the requirement of Clause
(b) for the disciplinary authority simply to state that he was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any inquiry. Sometimes a situation may be such that it is not reasonably practicable to give detailed reasons for dispensing with the inquiry. This would not, however, per se invalidate the order. Each case must be judged on its own merits and in the light of its own facts and circumstances.
138. Where a government servant is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by applying Clause (b) or an analogous provision of the service rules and he approaches either the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32, the court will interfere on grounds well established in law for the exercise of power of judicial review in matters where administrative discretion is exercised. It will consider whether Clause (b) or an analogous provision in the service rules was properly applied or not. The finality given by Clause (3) of Article 311 to the disciplinary authority's decision that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry is not binding upon the court. The court will also examine the charge of mala fides, if any, made in the writ petition. In examining the relevancy of the reasons, the court will consider the situation which according to the disciplinary authority made it come to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. If the court finds that the reasons are irrelevant, then the recording of its satisfaction by the disciplinary authority would be an abuse of power conferred upon it by Clause (b) and would take the case out of the purview of that clause and the impugned order of penalty would stand invalidated. In considering the relevancy of the reasons given by the disciplinary authority the court will not, however, sit in judgment over them like a court of first appeal. In order to decide whether the reasons are germane to Clause (b), the court must put itself in the place of the disciplinary authority and consider what in the then prevailing situation a reasonable man acting in a reasonable way would have done. The matter will have to be judged in the light of the then prevailing situation and not as if the disciplinary authority was deciding the question whether the inquiry should be dispensed with or not in the cool and detached atmosphere of a court room, removed in time from the situation in question. Where two views are possible, the court will decline to interfere."
16. In the case of Ram Saran Prasad vs. Union of India & Ors. 2013 Law Suit (All) 2841, judgment dated 25.10.2013, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court also follow the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court and observed in Para-10 as under:-
"10. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment would indicate that it is an extraordinary power, which is to be invoked only after satisfaction is recorded by the Disciplinary Authority that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. It is not an absolute impracticability, which is to compel the Disciplinary Authority in not holding the inquiry, rather the satisfaction is to be recorded that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. This satisfaction is to be arrived at by taking a reasonable view of the ground realities based on relevant materials. Law further enjoins upon the Disciplinary Authority to record reasons, which must be relevant and germane to the core issue, i.e. why it is not considered reasonable and practicable to hold the inquiry? Once reasons have been assigned, which are relevant and germane, then this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review, cannot sit in appeal and take a different Page 9 of 16 OA No.1302 of 2013 view. Any reason / ground, which does not address the core issue, would be bad in law and would be liable to be struck down. Such a power should not be exercised on the mere ipse dixit of the officer concerned or casually to dispense the services."
14. In the light of the aforesaid settled position of law, we examine the present case. The removal order which was passed is following:-
"श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव, हे कऩय-1/ऩावय/ववद्मुत अधीन सीननमय सेक्शन इॊजीननमय/ववद्मुत/फये र लसट ने अऩने ऩत्र (जो कक ददनाॊक 11.08.2010 को भये प्र/ववद्मुत/इज्ज. के कामावरम भें प्राप्त हुआ) द्वाया सूधचत ककमा कक वह ये र प्रशासन के उत्ऩीड़न के कायण ऩूये ऩरयवाय सदहत ददनाॊक 13.08.2010 को आत्भहत्मा कयें गे एवॊ इसके लरए वरय. भॊडर कालभवक अधधकाय , इज्जतनगय तथा वरयष्ठ भॊडर ववद्मुत इॊजीननमय, इज्जतनगय ल्जमभेदाय होंगे। साथ ह उन्होंने मह बी लरखा कक आत्भहत्मा के फाद इस ऩत्र को एप.आई.आय. भाना जाए। इस ऩत्र की प्रनतलरवऩ इन्होंने ये र प्रशासन के अरावा ल्जरा अधधकाय /फये र ऩुलरस अधीऺक/फये र सीफीआइ, याष्र म भानवाधधकाय आमोग औय ववलबन्न सभाचाय ऩत्रों तथा इरेक्राननक भीडीमा को बी द । श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव के उऩयोक्त ऩत्र द्वाया रगामे गमे ये र प्रशासन ऩय आयोऩ लभथ्मा एवॊ आधायह न हैं औय उनको ये र प्रशासन द्वाया ददए गमे दॊ ड उनके कुकृत्मों एवॊ गरनतमों के कायण ऩूय प्रकिमा अऩनाने के फाद ननष्ऩऺ होकय ह ददमे गमे हैं। श्री अनीर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव ने उऩयोक्त ऩत्र द्वाया न केवर अऩने कुकृत्मों ऩय ऩदाव डारकय ये र प्रशासन को आत्भहत्मा की धभकी दे कय डयाने (Intimidate) का प्रमास ककमा है , फल्कक 15 अगस्त, 2010 (स्वतॊत्रता ददवस) से ठीक ऩूवव ऐसे गैयकानूनी कृत्म कयने के प्रमोजन की सूचना दे कय नगय प्रशासन को बी ऐसे सॊवेदनशीर अवसय ऩय ददग्भ्रलभत ककमा एवॊ नगय की अभन शाल्न्त बॊग कयने का बी प्रमास ककमा है । इस कायण ल्जराधधकाय /फये र को बी उनके गैयकानूनी कृत्म को योकने के लरए अऩय ल्जराधधकाय (नगय)/फये र को ऩत्र द्वाया ननदे श दे ना ऩड़ा एवॊ श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव को ददनाॊक 13.08.2010 को थाना/इज्जतनगय भें धाया 151/107/116 के अॊतगवत शाॊनत बॊग के आयोऩ भें केस दजव कयके धगयफ्ताय ककमा गमा।
श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव के उऩयोक्त ऩत्र भें रगामे गमे आयोऩों के गहन अध्ममन के फाद ननमनलरखखत तथ्म साभने आमे हैं:-
1. श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव ने आयोऩ रगामा है कक वरयष्ठ अधधकाय गण उनका रगाताय शोषण कय यहे हैं औय 20 सार की नौकय के फाद उन्हें नमूनतभ वेतन स्तय ऩय कय ददमा गमा है । इस सॊदबव भें तथ्म मह है कक स्थानाॊतयण सॊफॊधी 02 पजी ऩत्र, ऩहना भाननीम उच्च न्मामारम, उत्तयाखॊड का औय दस ू या भाननीम भुख्म न्मामधीश श्री ऩी.सी. वभाव द्वाया जाय ऩत्र (ल्जसकी प्रनतलरवऩ भहाप्रफॊधक/ऩूवोत्तय ये रवे/गोयखऩुय को द गमी थी) द्वाया श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव का स्थानाॊतयण काठगोदाभ से रखनऊ भॊडर भें कयने का आदे श ददमा गमा था। इन ऩत्रो के पजी होने की ऩुल्ष्ट भाननीम उच्च न्मामरम, इराहाफाद द्वाया की गमी। इनके ववरूद्ध रके धोखाधड़ी (Forgery) के आयोऩ साक्ष्मों के आघाय ऩय सत्म ऩामे औय भाननीम स्ऩेशर जे.एभ., सी.फी.आई दे हयादन ू ने श्री श्रीवस्तव को ऩाॉच भाह का सश्रभ कायावास का दॊ ड ऩारयत ककमा। तत्ऩश्चात केस की गॊबीयता को दे खते हुए ये र प्रशासन ने डीएआय के दहत प्रकिमा अऩनाते हुए श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव को ददनाॊक 31.12.2003 को तत्कार प्रबाव से ये र सेवा से ननष्कालसत (Remove) कय ददमा। इस ननणवम के ववरुद्ध श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास ्तव ने Page 10 of 16 OA No.1302 of 2013 अऩीर म अधधकाय को लरखी अऩनी अऩीर भें सी.फी.आई ऩय ह दफाव डारकय अऩने उऩय रगे आयोऩ को भनवाने का नमा आयोऩ रगा ददमा, ऩयन्तु अऩीर म अधधकाय ने इसे सत्म न भानते हुए सजा को कामभ यखा। इसके फाद श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव ने रयवीजन वऩट शन भें ये र प्रशासन से अऩनी ऩारयवारयक ल्स्थनत का वणवन कयते हुए ऩुन: सेवा भें लरए जाने का अनुयोध ककमा औय शऩथऩूवक व वचन ददमा कक बववष्म भें प्रत्मऺ अथवा अप्रत्मऺ रूऩ भें उनके द्वाया कोई बी ननमभ ववरूद्ध कामव मदद ककमा जाता है तो प्रशासन फगैय ककसी दहचककचाहट के उनको फखावस्त कय सकता है ।उनके इस शऩथ ऩय ददमे गमे वचन के आधाय ऩय ये र प्रशासन ने सहानुबूनतऩूवक व ववचाय कयके उन्हें कामावरम आदे श सॊ. 4743 ददनाॊक 06.08.2004 के द्वाया ये र सेवा भें ननमनतभ ऩद हे कऩय-11/ऩावय तत्कार न वेतनभान 2550-3200 भें भूर वेतन 2550/- प्रनत भाह ऩय ऩदस्थावऩत कय इनकी तैनाती ऩीर बीत भें सेइ/वव/ऩीलरबीत के अधीन की। अत् श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव का उऩयोक्त आयोऩ ऩूणत व मा असत्म एवॊ गुभयाह कयने वारा है कक उन्हें 20 वषव की सेवा के फाद बी ननमनतभ वेतन स्तय ऩय यखकय प्रताडड़त ककमा गमा है ।
साथ ह मह केस वषव 2004 का है औय ऩूय प्रकिमा के फाद कभवचाय द्वाया स्वीकाय ककमा गमा है । इसके आधाय ऩय वतवभान ऩदस्थावऩत अधधकारयमों ऩय प्रताड़ना का आयोऩ रगाकय आत्भहत्मा की धभकी एवॊ एपआईआय कयना न केवर दब ु ाववनाऩूणव एवॊ ये र प्रशासन को डयाने का कृत्म है , फल्कक गैयकानूनी एवॊ ये रवे ववबाग की छवव धूलभर कयने का प्रमास बी है ।
2. श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव ने दस ू या आयोऩ मह रगामा है कक बफना ककसी जाॊच ऩड़तार के (जाॊच के सह तथ्मों को अनदे खा कयके) उनकी वावषवक वेतन ववृ द्ध ऩाॉच वषव के लरए योक द गमी। इस सॊफॊध भें तथ्म मह है कक सेक्शन इॊजीननमय/ववद्मुत /ऩीर लबत द्वाया ददनाॊक 27.09.2006 को सूधचत ककमा गमा कक श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव ददनाॊक 12.01.2006 से रगाताय बफना ककसी सूचना के आधाय ऩय अनुऩल्स्थत चर यहे हैं औय इन्हें इस कायण ददनाॊक 05.10.2006 को द घव शाल्स्त ऩत्र ददमा गमा। इसके उत्तय भें अऩना प्रनतवेदन दे ते हुए श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव ने अऩने ऊऩय रगामे गमे आयोऩों कोअस्वीकाय कयते हुए सेक्शन इॊजीननमय/ववद्मुत /ऩीर बीत तथा अन्म ऩमववेऺकों एवॊ कभवचारयमों ऩय ह अत्मन्त जघन्म आयोऩ रगा ददमे, ल्जनका उनके केस से कोई सॊफॊध नह ॊ था। इस ऩत्र भें बी उन्होंने प्रशासन को अऩने एवॊ अऩने ऩरयवाय के द्वाया साभूदहक रूऩ से आत्भहत्मा की धभकी द औय ऩत्र की प्रनतलरवऩ को ये न प्रशासन के अरावा भुख्म सतकवता आमुक्त, सीफीआई, भानवाधधकाय आमोग आदद को बी प्रेवषत ककमा। इस ऩत्र के साथ- साथ उन्होंने कामव से अनुऩल्स्थत यहने के कायण बी एक अरग ऩत्र द्वाया सूधचत ककमा कक उनकी ऩीरबीत के आसऩास के गावों भें यहने वारे कुछ रोगों के साथ दश्ु भनी हो गमी है जो उन्हें जान से भायने की धभकी दे यहे हैं औय ड्मूट नह ॊ कयने दे यहे हैं। इस कायण वह ड्मूट नह ॊ कय ऩा यहे हैं। उनहोंने इस आधाय ऩय फये र स्थानाॊतयण कयने का अनुयोध ककमा औय मह बी लरखा कक मदद बववष्म भें उनके मा उनके ऩरयवाय के साथ कोई अनहोनी घटना होती है तो उसके लरए ये र प्रशासन ल्जमभेदाय होगा, अथावत उन्होंने अऩनी व्मल्क्तगत दश्ु भनी के लर बी ये र प्रशासन ऩय आयोऩ रगा ददए। इसकी प्रनतलरवऩ उन्होंने ऩीर बीत के ल्जराधधकाय एवॊ वरयष्ठ ऩुलरस अधीऺक को बी प्रेवषत की। जाॊच के दौयान इन्होंने जाॊच अधधकाय की ननष्ऩऺता ऩय बी सॊदेह व्मक्त ककमा औय अनुयोध ककमा कक जाॊच का केंद्र (ऩीर बीत) एवॊ जाॉच अधधकाय दोनों को फदर ददमा जाए।
Page 11 of 16 OA No.1302 of 2013अनुशासननक अधधकाय ने जाॉच यऩट एवॊ जाॉच कामववाह के गहन अध्ममन के फाद मह ननणवम लरमा कक कभवचाय के द्वाया ददए गए प्रभाण ऩत्र फनावट है , साथ ह कभवचाय को मदद जान का कोई खतया था, तो उन्होंने सॊफॊधधत थाने भें एपआईआय बी नह ॊ की, जो कक स्वाबाववक होता। इस ननणवम के ववरुद्ध कभवचाय ने अऩने फचाव भें कोई तथ्म नह ॊ ददमा एवॊ इस आधाय ऩय अनुशासननक अधधकाय ने श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव को उनके वेतनभान (2550-3200) भें वेतन दय रु 2605/- से ननचरे स्तय रु. 2550/- ऩय 05 वषों हे तु अवननत का दॊ ड ऩारयत ककमा, जो उनके बावी वेतनवद्ध ृ ी को प्रबाववत कये गा। इस दॊ ड के ववरुद्ध अऩीर भें एक तयप तो कभवचाय ने ऩुन् अऩने ववरुद्ध रगे आयोऩों को नकाय ददमा औय दस ू य तयप मह बी लरखा है कक "कभवचाय को ददमा दण्ड फहुत ज्मादा है , जो कभवचाय की ल्स्थनत को दे खते हुए उधचत नह ॊ है । भहोदम, आऩ ये र ववद्मुत ऩरयवाय के भुखखमा है , हभ आऩके ऩरयवाय का दहस्सा है । दण्ड दे ना आऩके अनुशासन भें शालभर है , तो ऺभा कयना बी आऩकी भहानता का एक अॊग है । फच्चे गरती कयते हैं औय फड़े ऺभा कयते हैं। मह साभाल्जक व्मव्स्था बी है । औय दोफाया गरती न कयने की चेतावनी बी है ।" तथ्मों के आधाय ऩय अऩीर म अधधकाय ने बी श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव को ददए गमे दॊ ड को कामभ यखा।
उऩयोक्त से स्ऩष्ट है कक श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव को ददमा गमा दण्ड उनके कामव से रगाताय अनुऩल्स्थत यहने के कायण ऩूय प्रकिमा अऩनाते हुए तथा कभवचाय को फचाव के सबी अवसय ददए जाने के फाद ह ऩारयत ककमा गमा। इस सॊदय्ब भें मह बी तथ्म साभने आमे है कक श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव ने अऩने ऊऩय रगे आयोऩों का उत्तय दे ने के स्थान ऩय अऩने ऩमववेऺक, जाॉच अधधकाय तथा अनुशासननक अधधकाय ऩय जघन्म आयोऩ रगा ददए औय अऩने ऩत्र की प्रनतलरवऩ ये र प्रशासन के अरावा अन्म ववबागों (ऩुलरस, ल्जरा प्रशासन, सतकवता आमोग, भानवाधधकाय आमोग आदद) को बी प्रेवषत की, जो कक ये र प्रशासन ऩय अनावश्मक दफाफ फनाने औय ववबाग की छवव धूलभर कयना का कृत्म है ।
3. श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव ने मह बी आयोऩ रगामा गै कक आवास कटौती के नाभ ऩय उनकी रु. 95000/- की कटौती के आदे श गमे गमे हैं। इस सॊदबव भें तथ्म मह है कक इस कभवचाय ने फये र भें यहते हुए, ऩीर बीत भें अनधधकृत रूऩ से ये र आवास 33 भाह 24 ददन तक योके यखा। ये र ननमभानुसाय इस आवास का डैभेज यें ट रु. 2815.00 प्रनतभाह होता है । इस तयह कुर अवधे के डैभये ज यें ट रु. 95151.00 की कटौती कयने हे तु कालभवक शाखा का ऩत्र लरखा गमा। मह कटौती ऩूणत व मा ये र ननमभों के अॊतगवत ह की गमी है औय इसभें कोई दब ु ाववना मा प्रताड़ना का उद्देश्म नह ॊ है । इस सॊदबव भें कालभवक शाखा ने सूधचत ककमा है कक अबी इस कटोती की शुरूआत नह ॊ की गमी है ।
उऩयोक्त तथमों से स्ऩष्ट है कक -
(अ) श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव को ददनाॊक 31.12.2003 को ये र सेवा से ननष्कासन (रयभूवर) के ऩश्चात ये रवे ददवाया उनके इस शऩथऩूवक व फमान ऩय ह ऩुन: ये र सेवा भे लरमा गमा था कक मदद वह बववष्म भेेे प्रत्मऺ अथवा अप्रत्मऺ रूऩ कोई बी ननमभ ववरूद्ध कामव कयते हैं तो प्रशासन फगैय ककसी Page 12 of 16 OA No.1302 of 2013 दहचककचाहट के उनको फखावस्त कय सकता है । ऩयन्तु इसके ऩशचात श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव न केवर ननमभ ववरूद्ध फगैय सूचना के रगाताय अनुऩल्स्थत यहे , फल्कक उन्होने अऩने औय अऩने ऩरयवाय द्वाया साभूदहक आत्भहत्मा की धभकी दे कय न केवर एक गैयकानूनी कृत्म ककमा है , फल्कक अऩने ऊऩय रगे प्रभाखणत आयोऩों को नछऩाते हुए ये र प्रशासन ऩय लभथ्मा एवॊ दब ु ाववनाऩूणव राॊछन रगाए हैं।
(फ) श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव ने ऩूवव भें न केवर भाननीम उच्च न्मामरम के पजी आदे श फनवाकय अऩने स्थानाॊतयण का प्रमास कयने का जघन्म अऩयाध ककमा है , फल्कक उन्होनें सीफीआई ऩय बी उन ऩय रगे आयोऩो को दफाफ डारकय स्वीकय कयवाने का बी आयोऩ रगामा है । जफ बी श्री अननक कुभाय श्रीवास्तव के ददवाया कोई ननमभ ववयोधी कामव ककए जाने ऩय कामववाह की गमी है , तो उन्होंने अऩने ऩमववेऺक, जाॉच अधधकाय एवॊ प्रशासननक अधधकारयमों ऩय ह जघन्म आयोऩ रगा ददए औय दफाफ डारने के लरए न केवर ऩुलरस, ल्जरा प्रशासन, सतकवता ववबाग आदद को ऩत्र लरखकय गुभयाह ककमा, फल्कक साभूदहक आत्भहत्मा की फाय-फाय धभकी दे कय सॊफॊधधत अधधकारयमों को डयाने का प्रमास ककमा।
(स) अऩने ददनाॊक 13.08.2010 के ऩत्र द्वाया श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव ने अऩने औय अऩने ऩरयवाय द्वाया साभूदहक आत्भहत्मा की धभकी दे कय स्वतॊत्रता ददवस के भहत्वऩूणव ददवस से ठीक ऩूवव इस सॊवेदनशीर अवसय ऩय शाॊनत बॊग कयने का प्रमास ककमा, ल्जसके कायण नगय प्रशासन को उक्त अवधध भें शाॊनत व्मवस्था फनाने के लरए श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवस्तव की धगयफ्ताय कयनी ऩड़ी। मह दशवता है कक श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव अऩने कुकृत्मों को नछऩाने हे तु दफाफ फनाने के लरए ककसी बी हद तक जा सकते हैं। साथ ह इनेहोंने उक्त साभूदहक आत्भहत्मा के लरए बेजे गमे अऩने ऩत्र द्वाया भॊडर के वरयष्ठ अधधकारयमों के ववरुद्ध एपआईआय कयने के लरए बी ऩुलरस को लरखा है , जो कक न केवर उऩयोक्त अधधकारयमों को उनके द्वाया ककए जाने वारे प्रशासननक/ कामावरम कामव नें फाधा उत्ऩन्न कयाने के लरए दफाफ फनाने का कृत्म है , फल्कक उनको भानलसक प्रताड़ना दे ने का प्रमास बी है ।
उऩयोक्त से स्ऩष्ट है कक न केवर श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव ऩूवव भें गॊबीय आयोऩों के दोषी ऩाए गए हैं, फल्कक जफ बी इनके ववरुद्ध इन आयोऩों की जाॉच की जाती है , तो मह प्रकिमा भें सल्मभलरत सबी प्रशासननक अधधकारयमों को डयाने के लरए गैयकानूनी कामव कयने से बी फाज नह ॊ आते हैं। उऩयोक्त आरोक नें श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव/ हे कऩय-I अधीन सीसेइ/वव/फये र लसट को ये र सेवा भें आगे फनाए यखना अवाॊछनीम होगा तथा श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव के व्मवहाय ऩय ववचायोऩयाॊत मह ऩामा गमा है कक इस भाभरे भें ये र सेवक (अनुशासन एवॊ अऩीर) ननमभ, 1968 भें ददए गए प्रवाधानें के अनुरूऩ जाॉच कयना व्मवहारयक नह ॊ है । अत: ये र सेवक (अनुशासन एवॊ अऩीर) ननमभ, 1968 के ननमभ 14(II) भें द गमी शल्क्तमों का प्रमोग कयते हुए अधोहस्ताऺय एतद् द्वाया श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव, हे कऩय -I अधीन सीननमय सेक्शन इॊजीननमय/ ववद्मुत/ फये र लसट को ये र सेवा से ददनाॊक 31.08.2010 से ननष्कालसत (Remove) कयता है ।
श्री अननर कुभाय श्रीवास्तव ये र सेवक (अननशासन एवॊ अऩीर ) ननमभ, 1968 के ननमभ 18 एवॊ 19 के अॊतयगत चाहें तो उऩयोक्त आदे शों के ववरूद्ध वरयष्ठ भॊडर ववद्मुत इॊजीननमय/ ऩूवोत्तय ये रवे /इज्जतनगय को अऩीर कय सकते हैं, फशते -
Page 13 of 16 OA No.1302 of 2013(i) अऩीर इस ऻाऩन की प्रनतलरवऩ प्राप्त होने के 45 ददन कें अॊदय प्रस्तुत ककमा जाए।
(ii) अऩीर आवेदक अऩने नाभ से कये तथा उस अधधाकाय को सॊफोधधत कये जो अऩीर ननस्तासण कयने हे तु अधधकृत हो तथा अनुधचत एवॊ अभमावददत बाषा भें नह ॊ हो।"
15. From the simple reading of the said order two things are very clear that it heavily relies on earlier instances for which already penalties have been imposed on the applicant and for which the applicant has already suffered the consequences of those in terms of imposition of penalty or imprisonment. Also, no clear cut case is evident of respondents authorities putting effort and examining applicant's grievances and contention that 90% of his salaries cannot be deducted, and that such excessive deduction was making his life miserable. Hence, it is not clear that the authorities applied their mind to the genuine grievances of the applicant and were more swayed by his earlier conduct for which he was already punished.
16. In the said impugned order it is not clear what are the charges for which the authorities wanted to impose penalty on the applicant. It is difficult to disaggregate the charges, evidences and the grounds for coming to a conclusion that it was not a fit case to hold inquiry practicably as provided in the rules. Predominanly the impugned order consists of imports from the earlier disciplinary cases which were concluded against the applicant. In the said order only towards the end as part of the operative portion it is collectively mentioned alongwith the penalty, why it was not reasonably practicable to hold inquiry, instead first examining thoroughly as to why it was not rea sonably practicable to hold inquiry, and then examining the details of the fresh charges levelled against the applicant alongwith the evidence before the disciplinary authority by which it could infer that those charges were proved.Page 14 of 16 OA No.1302 of 2013
17. It is difficult to accept that same authorities could earlier conduct two different inquiries successfully against the applicant and imposed penalty on him, without any threat to any officers. We are not convinced that any valid ground existed to come to a conclusion by the disciplinary authority that it was not reasonably practicable in this particular case to hold an inquiry. Hence, we have no doubt to conclude that conditions laid down in provision 14 (II) of the Special Provison in certain cases, "where the disciplinary authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules", is met in the instant case.
18. A disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the departmental's case against the government servant is weak and must fail.
19. As discussed earlier it is obvious that the recording in writing of the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry must precede the order imposing the penalty. The reasons for dispensing with the inquiry need not, therefore find a place in the final order. It would have been usual to record the reasons separately and then consider the question of penalty to be imposed and pass the order imposing the penalty. Although as mentioned earlier, reasons for not conducting inquiry could have been recorded in the preamble or background part of the order. As the present impugned order of disciplinary authority mixes the reasons to arrive at the conclusion of why it considered it was reasonably impracticable to conduct an inquiry with the appreciation of evidences on the charges in the present case and coming to a consolidated conclusion on reasonableness of practicability to conduct the DE and also the imposition of penalty has certainly created Page 15 of 16 OA No.1302 of 2013 obvious confusion as to the contents of earlier cases also appearing to be part of charges and have swayed the authorities considerably on arriving on the decision of quantum of penalty. If facts are so, then the authorities have not done justice and have caused avoidable double jeopardy to the applicant and they are trying to imposed a second penalty for charges for which the applicant had already suffered disciplinary consequences earlier.
20. No clear reasoning is forthcoming as to why in this case the authorities came to a conclusion that it was not a case where inquiry could not be conducted as they had already conducted inquiry in two earlier cases and imposed penalty of removal from service and then moderating their orders in appeal. Considering the foregoing discussions, we pass following orders:-
"The OA is allowed, setting aside all the impugned orders dated 31.08.2010, 04.03.2009, 11.02.2011 and 10.04.2013. Competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits within a period of six months from the date or receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made further clear that the respondents are free to initiate a fresh departmental inquiry against the applicant as per law and procedure. All associated MAs are accordingly disposed off. No costs."
(Dr. Sanjiv Kumar) (Justice B.K. Shrivastava)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Piyush/
Page 16 of 16