Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Ravi Dharavath vs Drdo on 15 April, 2024
1
OA.No.466/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/00466/2023
HYDERABAD, this the 15th day of April, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mr. Ravi Dharavath, Sc 'C'
S/o. Bhadru, age: 33 years
ASL, Defence Research & Development Organisation
Ministry of Defence
PO Kanchanbagh
Hyderabad - 500058. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri K.Sudhakar Reddy)
Vs.
Union of India
Rep. by its Director of Personnel
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
Defence Research & Development Organisation
HQ, Directorate of Personnel
'A' Block, DRDO Bhavan
New Delhi - 110011. ....Respondent
(By Advocate Sri B.Siva Sankar, Senior Panel Counsel for Central
Government)
*****
2
OA.No.466/2023
ORAL ORDER
PER: HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"To call for the records and quash and set aside the impugned order No: DOP/08/9307/M/01 dated: 22 May 2023 issued by the respondent imposing the penalty of 'Censure' on the applicant as illegal, arbitrary and also violation of the applicant's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India."
2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are as under:
The applicant is presently working as Scientist 'C' in the office of ASL, Defence Research & Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence, PO Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad (2nd respondent) and he belongs to ST community. While so he was arrested by police on 29.11.2019 and kept under detention on the basis of a complaint lodged against him and an FIR was registered basing on the same under Section 313, 376, 323, 294(b) IPC and Sec 4 of DP Act. A charge sheet was also filed in the criminal case on 21.01.2020. On the basis of the charge sheet dated 21.01.2020 filed in the criminal Court, the respondent herein initiated a departmental proceeding against the applicant vide charge memo dated 16.09.2020 for inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 by relying on the charge sheet filed in the criminal court and framed article of charges for refusing to marry the complainant and thereby unbecoming of a Govt Servant thus violation of Rule 3 (1) (iii) & (vi) CCS and 3(1) (xi) Conduct Rules 1964 and also violation of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Then applicant submitted his written statement of defence vide letter dated 10.10.2020 wherein he denied all the charges. The alleged criminal case is not at all related to the office duties of the applicant. It is a false complaint 3 OA.No.466/2023 made against the applicant at the behest of the rivals in the native village and the applicant is falsely implicated in a criminal case. Departmental proceedings are not based on the work related to his job in the office nor it relates to any misappropriation of funds and any insubordination. Respondent herein totally relied upon the charge sheet filed in the criminal Court as the evidence to prove the charges. The allegations in the complaint are related to Section 313, 376, 323, 294 (b) IPC and Sec 4 of DP Act but whereas the department initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 for violation of Rule 3 of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964. In fact there is no complaint submitted to the department against the applicant making any of the allegations. Instead of waiting for the outcome of the criminal case, the respondent initiated departmental proceeding on the basis of the charge sheet filed in the criminal court and shown the same as listed document to prove the charges. Under Rule 19 of CCS Rules, a special procedure is laid down which says if a government employee is convicted in the criminal court after trial in the court of law, the disciplinary authority can take a decision after going through the judgment. Without waiting for the outcome of the criminal case, respondent in haste initiated disciplinary proceedings under CCS(Conduct) Rules relying on the charge sheet filed in the criminal court. The applicant was acquitted in the criminal case filed before the Hon'ble Spl Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking Cases-cum-VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Khammam on 04.05.2022. On 26.08.2022, the Inquiry Officer (IO) submitted report holding charge No.1 as not proved and charge No.2 & 3 as partially proved. In the departmental inquiries, the inquiry officer is supposed to hold the charges as proved and there is no such procedure of holding the charges as partially proved 4 OA.No.466/2023 by holding in all probability might have happened and may not be ruled out. The disciplinary authority instead of disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer who held the charges No.2 & 3 as partially proved without recording any legally valid and acceptable evidence during the inquiry, had issued impugned order dated 22.05.2023 imposing the penalty of 'Censure' on the applicant which is clearly illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the applicant has filed the present OA.
3. After notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and have filed detailed reply statement opposing the relief of the applicant on the ground that though the applicant has been acquitted by the criminal court, the disciplinary authority applied its independent application of mind and after evaluating the entire scenario, it agreed with the findings of IO and imposed the minor penalty of 'Censure' on the applicant. Subsequently, the applicant's case has been considered for promotion as Scientist-D in the year 2023 but in the light of penalty of 'Censure', the sealed covers for the years 2020, 2021 & 2022 are not be acted upon. The respondents further contended that although the charge memorandum has issued for the major penalty however ended with minor penalty of 'censure' and the said penalty cannot be said to be disproportionate and hence, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant strongly argued on the point that when the applicant has been acquitted by the criminal court, the department had initiated the disciplinary proceedings for the same set of facts and allegations. Though 5 OA.No.466/2023 the inquiry officer had found the first charge as not proved however, the second and third charges have been held as partially proved after going through the statement made by the PW1 before the inquiry proceedings and no other substantial evidence could be provided to establish the charges made in above said article. The PW-1 is also not co-horrent as seen by her not supporting her own prosecution case during trial by court, so she cannot be fully believed for such serious criminal charges. Therefore, the charges made in first article of charges are not established. However, considering the statement of PW1, the Inquiry Officer(IO) had held the other two charges are partially proved which is contradictory in nature. If the IO has not accepted the PW1 statement against the first charge, he cannot believe for the second and third charges. Moreover once the applicant has been acquitted by the criminal court with clean acquittal beyond reasonable doubt, the respondent department may not have to impose even the minor penalty against the major penalty charge sheet when the charges have not been proved and mere saying partially proved will not suffice the penalty which has been imposed by way of a sanction, thereby the applicant has been denied with the promotion though his name has been referred to the DPC. Since the applicant is due for promotion for the years 2020, 2021 & 2022, DPC has considered his case for promotion, however, the same has been kept in sealed cover because the effect of 'Censure' will be there for one year. However, the applicant has not been considered even for the year 2021-2022. Considering the criminal case which came to be finally ended with the acquittal of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the penalty of censure is not justified. To support his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 6 OA.No.466/2023 Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023 in the matter of Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan &Ors. vide its order dated 04.12 2023 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the order of termination and directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits including seniority, notional promotion, fitment of salary and all other benefits. As far as back wages are concerned, 50% of the same has been ordered.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the relief on the ground that though the applicant has been acquitted by the criminal court, the disciplinary authority applied its independent application of mind and after evaluating the entire scenario, it agreed with the finding and imposed the minor penalty of 'Censure'. Subsequently, the applicant's case has been considered for promotion as Scientist-D in the year 2023 but in the light of penalty of 'Censure', the sealed covers for the years 2020, 2021 & 2022 are not be acted upon. The respondents further contended that although the charge memorandum has issued for the major penalty however ended with minor penalty of 'censure' and the said penalty cannot be said to be disproportionate.
7. It is to be noted that when the applicant has been acquitted by the Criminal Court with clean acquittal, without considering the order of the Criminal Court, the department has issued major penalty charge memo on the same set of charges as in criminal case and the same has ended with the minor penalty of 'Censure' imposed on the applicant. It is also to be noted that the Inquiry Officer has not accepted the PW-1 Statement to corroborate the evidence against charge No.1, however, he has relied upon the evidence laid by PW-1 against charges No.2 & 3 holding that the allegation which has been levelled 7 OA.No.466/2023 against the applicant in all probability might have happened and also quarrelling with the complainant's family and abusing them and beating the complainant publicly may not be ruled out. However, when there is no evidence available to the Inquiry Officer, he cannot come to the conclusion that the charges No.2 & 3 are partially established. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. vide its order dated 04.12 2023 in Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023 had held as follows:
25. Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honourably acquitted", used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Exh. P-3, the original mark sheet carries the date of birth as 21.04.1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.
26. We are satisfied that the findings of the appellate judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, "not proved"- in fact the charge even stood "disproved" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be "disproved" when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved"[See Vijayee Singh and Others v. State of U.P. (1990) 3 SCC 190]
8. Following with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of G.M.Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Others (2006) 5 SCC 446 where removal order has been set aside and delinquent employee has been reinstated into service with all consequential benefits along with 50% back wages, in the present case also, when the applicant has come out with clean acquittal by the Criminal Court, it is established that there is no corroborative evidence or direct evidence 8 OA.No.466/2023 to prove the article of charges No.2 & 3 as the respondents in their disciplinary proceedings have relied upon the same set of evidence and witnesses as in the criminal case. Since the applicant is eligible and entitled for promotion since 2020, his case has been placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion but for the minor penalty of censure, the sealed covers for the years 2020, 2021 and 2022 in respect of the applicant are not acted upon. But when there is no corroborative and direct evidence to prove the article of charges No.2 & 3 against the applicant, imposing the penalty of 'Censure' against the applicant does not sustain in the eyes of law and therefore, the order of 'Censure' dated 22.5.2023 is hereby quashed and set aside.
9. With the above observation, the OA is allowed. No order as to costs.
(DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE) JUDICIAL MEMBER /ps/