Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Manoj Kumar vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. 1081/2004 New Delhi this the 8th day of September, 2008 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M. RAMACHANDRAN, VICE CHAIRMAN (J) Shri Manoj Kumar, S/o Late Shri Anand Swaroop Sharma, R/o G-447, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi. Applicant. (By Advocate Shri S.K. Gupta) Versus 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Small Scale Industries, Udhyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Addl. Secretary & Development Commissioner, Govt. of India, Ministry of S.S.I., Office of the Development Commissioner, (Small Scale Industries), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Director, Small Industries Service Institute, Ministry of S.S.I, Okhla, New Delhi-110 020. 4. S.P. Madan, Inquiry Officer, C/o Director, Small Industries Service Institute, Ministry of S.S.I, Okhla, New Delhi-110 020. Respondents. (By Advocate Mrs. Jagrati Singh proxy for Shri A.K. Bhardwaj) O R D E R
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J).
The records indicate that the view taken by Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) while finally deciding the case, was not acceptable to Honble Shri S.K. Malhotra, Member (A), especially in the matter of application of Rule 14 (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. There was difference of opinion and the matter had been placed before the Honble Chairman. On 17.08.2005, there was a direction to place the matter before a Bench presided over by the Vice Chairman Honble Mr. Justice M.A. Khan. Later by order-dated 27.02.2007, the OA had been listed before me. The difference of opinion between two members, as could be gatherable from the two orders signed by them and which find place in the records was substantial.
2. This is a case where disciplinary actions were taken against the applicant who worked as UDC under the respondents. Major penalty proceedings were initiated and ultimately on 03.05.2000, a punishment of dismissal had been inflicted on him, which was confirmed by the appellate authority on 20.07.2001. OA 451 of 2002 had been filed challenging the orders. Without going to the merits of the case as such, a Bench had on 10.01.2003 set aside the orders, holding that the disciplinary authority had not stated proper reasons for coming to the conclusion and the appellate authority had not gone into the aspects of proportionality of punishment.
3. Subsequently fresh penalty orders had been issued to the applicant reducing him to the post of LDC. The order had been confirmed in appeal. They are Annexures A-1 and A-2, respectively, impugned here.
4. Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) had found that the proceedings of the Inquiry Officer were vitiated insomuch as while dealing with the Charge No. 3, the findings of the `fact finding committee had been relied on by the Inquiry Officer. Such report was never brought to the notice of the applicant nor it had found place in the records of enquiry. This had been found as a vitiating circumstance. The Member had also found merit in the contention that there was violation of Rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules insofar as the delinquent officer had not put the circumstances appearing in evidence against the applicant during the course of the inquiry and this was pointed out as a serious lapse vitiating the proceedings. He had overruled the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that document relied upon as objected pertained to the allegations forming third charge, and it could have been segregated, since other charges had been proved independently. Respondents had also contended that insofar as the defence statement had been submitted by the applicant in an essential content, Rule 14 (18) stood satisfied. This too was not found acceptable.
5. However, Honble Mr. Malhotra, Administrative Member had accepted the contentions put forward by the respondents on both counts.
6. I had heard the parties since it had been indicated that an out of court settlement would not have been possible to be arrived at. From a reading of the impugned order, it is difficult for one to come to a conclusion whether or not Charge No. 3 could have been segregated and even in its absence, the same punishment could have been imposed on the applicant. This is especially since Charge No. 1 was a case of unauthorized absence on a few days and charge No. 2 accused him of interfering with the office/administrative work. Article 4 alleged willful disobedience of office orders in so far as there was delay in handing over charge of library. Article 5 was a case of allegedly using abusive language and adopting harassing attitude exhibited by him. Article 6 found fault with him for addressing letters directly to Prime Minister and other senior dignitaries.
7. In fact, reading the report as a whole, it is evident that Article 3, where it is alleged that he had made a false complaint about the theft in the library, was the centerpiece of disciplinary action and the role had been highly adverted to. On rest of the charges, there is little discussion. If, as a matter of fact, this charge had been found as proved with the aid of extraneous materials, the proceedings definitely requires to be characterized as irregular; corrupting the root of the issue; and impugned orders required to be set aside.
8. In this situation, advertence to the second aspect becomes irrelevant, as the punishment necessarily is to be held as illegal. I may just observe that on the wording of Rule 14 (18), it may not be possible generally to dispense with questioning of the delinquent only for the reason that he had chosen to file a written statement on the conclusion of the inquiry. It may not be necessary, however, to sit down for a detailed discussion on the issue, in view of the circumstances that I have agreed with the views of Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J).
9. Consequently, the impugned orders are required to be set aside. Resultantly, O.A. will stand allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. Applicant will be entitled to a declaration that he will not have any prejudice in his career bearing the presence of Annexure A-1 and A-2. Appropriate follow up orders are to be passed by the 3rd respondent in this regard within two months from today. No costs.
(M. RAMACHANDRAN) VICE CHAIRMAN (J) `SRD