Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ramesh Chand Ojha Son Of Brahm Deo Ojha ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary ... on 1 June, 2012
Reserved CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD (THIS THE 1st DAY OFJune, 2012) PRESENT: HONBLE MR. D.C.LAKHA, MEMBER-A ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1073 OF 2007 (U/s, 19 Administrative Tribunal Act.1985) Ramesh Chand Ojha Son of Brahm Deo Ojha R/o Ram Chhatani, Post Radha Shyam Dham, Gopiganj, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi), Presently posted at Allahabad. . . . . . . . .Applicants By Advocate: Shri L.K. Dwivedi Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary Textile, Ministry of Textile, Secretariate, New Delhi. 2. Development Commissioner (Handicraft), West Block No. 7, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. 3. Regional Director, (CR) Office of the Development Commissioner, Kendriya Bhawan, 7th Floor, Aliganj, Lucknow. . . . . . . . . . Respondents By Advocate: Shri Tej Prakash (Reserved on 22.03.2012) O R D E R
(DELIVERED BY:- HONBLE MR. D.C.LAKHA, MEMBER-A The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
i. That the applicant prays that this Honble Tribunal to quash the order dated 21.05.2007 passed by the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) (Annexure A-1 to the original application) and order dated 13.08.2007 passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure A-2 to the original application).
ii. Issue any other application, order or direction, as this Honble Court which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iii. Award cost of the application to the applicant.
2. As per the facts submitted in the O.A., the applicant was appointed as Store Keeper-cum-Accounts Clerk in the department at FAC district Varanasi in 1978. While posted at CWTSC, Chinhat, Lucknow, he was accompanied by Assistant Director Shri V. K. Srivastava on whose direction the lock was broken and 54 carpets was lifted for transportation. A charge sheet dated 20.03.1998 (Annexure-3) was issued to the applicant with the following imputation of charge:-
The said sheri R. C. Ojha while functioning as Storekeeper-cum-Accounts Clerk in the Carpet weaving Training-cum-Service Centre, Lucknow, had helped Shri V. K. Srivastava, the then Assistant Director, Service Centre, Lucknow for lifting of 54 carpets from the RCS, Faizabad and storing in OWTC, Chinhat unauthorizedly with the intention to embezzle the carpet amounting to Rs.87,750/- in connivance of Shri V. K. Srivastava, the then Asstt. Director (A&C), CWTSC, Lucknow.
By the aforesaid act, Shri Ojha has exhibited a conduct of unbecoming of a Govt. servant and violated Rules 3(I)(i), 3(I)(ii) and 3(I)(iii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.
3. Applicant submitted his reply on 15.04.1998 stating that the charge levelled against him is manipulated and false. That the full inquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted inquiry report dated 28.02.2001 holding that on the basis of documents and oral evidence adduced in the case and in view of above analysis, I hold that charge framed against Shri R. C. Ojha, SK/AC is not proved. The disciplinary authority issued Memo dated 19.6.2001 asking the applicant if he wishes to make any representation or submission, he may do so in writing. Inspite of the fact that the disciplinary authority has not shown any intention to disagree with the inquiry report. Memorandum dated 19.67.2001 at Annexure -6. was iisued The disciplinary authority vide order dated 20/21.5.2002 imposed the penalty of withholding of increments of pay for a period not exceeding one year (A-8). When the appeal filed on 11.6.2002 was not decided, the applicant filed O.A. No. 1222/2003, which was decided on 17.10.2003 in which directions were given to appellate authority to decide the appeal within 3 months. The appeal preferred by the applicant was rejected vide order dated 5/7.5.2004 (A-9). Against the rejection of appeal vide order dated 21.5.2002 and 5/7.05.2004 the applicant filed O.A. No. 1138 of 2004 before the Tribunal which was decided on 12.12.2006 (A-10), by which the orders of disciplinary authority dated 20/21.5.2002 and of appellate authority dated 5/7.05.2004 were set aside and the respondents were directed to take appropriate action in accordance with CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 from the stage of submission of the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority issued Memo dated 19.1.2007 alongwith inquiry report mentioning disagreement (A-11). The applicant submitted reply dated 21.2.2007 (A-12) with the copy of judgment in O.A. 2250/2005 by which charge sheet against V.K. Srivastava, with whom the applicant accompanied to the Centre was quashed. The disciplinary authority, in a mechanical manner passed the impugned order dated 21.5.2007 imposing penalty of withholding of one increment for one year without cumulative effect. (A-1). The appeal filed by the applicant on 21.7.2007, was rejected by the impugned order dated 13.8.2007 in a mechanical manner (A-2). Hence the O.A.
4. The impugned orders are challenged mainly on the ground of being illegal, arbitary and discriminatory, especially because the charge sheet and disciplinary proceedings against Shri V.K. Srivastava has already been quashed by judgment dated 27.7.2006 and the department has accepted the judgment while the applicant being a lower rank employee is being harassed. It is also stated that since the applicant travelled by Govt. Jeep, as such there is no question of any T.A., only D.A. is paid and there is entry in the log book for the traveled place.
5. On notice, Counter reply has been filed by the respondents. The facts about the applicant being appointed as Store Keeper cum Accounts Clerk in 1978, submission of reply dated 15.4.1998 and the enquiry report being submitted on 28.2.2001 have been accepted by the respondents .It is alleged that the applicant has admitted that lock was broken and 54 carpets were lifted for transportation in his presence from RCS, Faizabad and stored in CWTC, Chinhat for which he was issued Memo dated 20.3.98. It is further stated that the Disciplinary authority imposed minor penalty vide order dated 20/21.5.2002 after disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry report as explained therein. The applicant has hidden the very fact of disagreement of D.A. The appellate authority decided the appeal vide order dated 5/7-5.2004 in the light of the judgment and order dated 17.10.2003 of the Tribunal in O.A. 1222/2003 filed by the applicant. The order passed by the appellate authority is self explanatory. It is further stated that against the order dated 20-21.5.2002 and 5/7-5-2004 the applicant filed OA. No. 1138/2004 which was decided vide order dated 12.12.2006 and the orders of the Disciplinary and the appellate authority were set aside and the case was remanded to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 from the stage of submission of inquiry report, but the applicant has concealed the fact that there were no remarks on the contents of the said order which shows the relevance of the penalty order. In compliance of the order of Hon. Tribunal the Disciplinary authority started the case from the stage of inquiry report by providing a copy of the inquiry report with the disagreement to its findings vide Memo dated 19.1.2007 (A-11 to the O.A). The disciplinary authority, again vide order dated 21.5.2007 taking action as per CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 without any discrimination, imposed upon the penalty in the same manner as it was imposed earlier and the appellate authority agreeing with the report of the Disciplinary authority, passed order dated 21.5.2007. It is further alleged that the applicant has admitted his visit to service centre/RCS, Faizabad on 28/29-11-1985 alongiwth Shri S. Bhattacharya and Shri V.K. Srivastava, AD, Service Centre Lucknow without any reason and evading the same in his T.A. Bills/ Tour programmes as mentioned in the disagreement of Disciplinary authority by which the Disciplinary authority found the applicant involved in the charges framed against him. In brief, the respondents have attempted to show and prove that the enquiry conducted in this case was as per rules and procedure laid down under the Conduct Rules and the impugned orders are passed after adopting the process of law with application of mind by the concerned authority. The O.A. lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Rejoinder affidavit by the applicant is filed almost reiterating the averments taken in the O.A. It has specifically been denied that the lock was broken and that in the tour program applicants visit is shown by government jeep from Lucknow to Gonda via Faizabad, as such there is no question of claiming T.A.
7. I have heard both the learned counsel in detail and have perused the pleadings submitted on behalf of both the parties. The learned counsel for the applicant has laid emphasis mainly on the point that as per the direction given by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1138/2004, the applicant was given the Memorandum dated 19.1.2007 by the disciplinary authority with disagreement note on the enquiry report in question. To that, the charged official i.e. the applicant submitted his reply relying upon another order of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No 2250/2005 decided on 27.7.2006 wherein the other co accused namely Shri V.K. Srivastava was acquitted finally. Similarly, the charge against the applicant has since not been proved initially, the disagreement by the disciplinary authority is unjustified. On the point of T.A., the learned counsel for the applicant has contended that since the applicant travelled by the Govt. vehicle, there was no question of charging the T.A. in the bill. The learned counsel for the applicant has also reiterated the points averred in the O.A. and the written submissions.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended that as per the direction of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1138/2004 decided on 12.12.2006 the Memorandum containing the disagreement with the enquiry report has been issued to the applicant, to which he gave his reply mainly relying upon the order of the Principal Bench in O..A No 2250/2005 decided on 27.7.2006. Referring to this order, he has argued that in this order the O.A. was allowed only because the disciplinary proceedings against Shri V.K. Srivastava , Assistant Director was initiated belatedly and the delay could not be explained, hence merely on the point of delay the O.A. was allowed in favour of the applicant. No benefit of this order can be made available to the applicant of this O.A. because whole of the proceedings was initiated within time and conducted as per rules and direction of the Tribunal.
9. In view of the above narration of facts, arguments of both the counsel and perusing their pleadings including the written arguments, I have given thoughtful consideration to the pleadings of the parties and their arguments. It is seen that this matter was to be considered afresh by the respondents right from the stage of enquiry report. Accordingly, as per rule, the Memorandum was issued containing the disagreement on the report of the enquiry officer against the charged official. The applicant/charged official gave his reply dated 21.2.2007 alongwith copy of the order of the Principal Bench in O..A No 2250/2005 decided on 27.7.2006 stating that the benefit of order in this O.A. passed by the Principal Bench be also given to the applicant as his case is similarly placed. After consideration of the reply, the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order dated 21.5.2007 (A-1) imposing the penalty of withholding one increment of pay for a period of one year. Of course, this order of punishment has been passed taking in view the reply of the charged official i.e. the applicant, as per rules. Thereafter, the applicant appealed against this order which has been disposed of by appellate order dated 13.8.2007. I observe that the impugned orders dated 21.5.2007 (A-1) and 13.8.2007 (A-2) against the applicant have been passed as per rules and they do not call for any interference. Accordingly, I find that the O.A. lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Member(A) s.a.