Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raj Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Om Parkash ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Its ... on 6 December, 2007
ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. Raj Kumar Sharma, applicant herein, through present Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the orders at Annexures A1 dated 16.05.2005, A2 dated 19.05.2003 and A2A dated 25.07.2007 being violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and procedure for departmental enquiry as contained under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1965').
2. Pursuant to involvement in a case registered against him under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, and also to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, order Annexure A/1 was passed after seeking the advice of UPSC dismissing the applicant from service.
3. On registration of case against the applicant, he was placed under suspension on 24.08.1998. It is no doubt true that against impugned order of conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant, a criminal appeal has since also been filed in the High Court of Calcutta which has been admitted. The interim order passed in the said appeal preferred by the applicant reads as under:
Realisation of fine is stayed till the disposal of the appeal.
The appellant shall continue on the same bail which have already been passed by the Court.
4. This order of admission with the interim order, as reproduced above, came to be passed by the High Court of Calcutta on 23.9.1998. It is not in dispute and, in fact, it has been averred by the applicant himself in the OA that before passing an order of dismissal a Memorandum was issued to him with regard to quantum of punishment and the impugned order (Annexure A/1) came to be passed only after the applicant responded to the same. Against the order aforesaid, the applicant made an application for review and when the same was not being decided, OA bearing No. 2222/2006 came to be filed in this Tribunal, which was disposed of on 21.5.2007, the operative part whereof reads as follows:
4. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the pleadings, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if direction is issued to respondents at this stage to consider and pass a reasoned and speaking order keeping in view the law of the land and rules in vogue in deciding aforesaid Review Petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the applicant is still aggrieved, it goes without saying that he would be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with rules and law on the subject.
Pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal, a speaking and detailed order has been passed whereby the review application of the applicant has been dismissed on 25.7.2007. It has been mentioned in the impugned order, referred to above, that the order of dismissal has been passed in view of the provisions contained in Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 and Govt. of India Instruction NO.2 (a)(i) and (ii) of the said Rules. It has also been mentioned that in case the applicant is acquitted from the charges, the order of penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon him would be set aside.
5. Mr. R.C. Gautam, counsel representing the applicant contends that once an appeal had been preferred by the applicant challenging the order of sentence, no order of dismissal could be passed without holding an enquiry.
6. Having heard the counsel representing the applicant and examining the records of the case, we find no merit whatsoever in the only contention raised by counsel representing the applicant, as noted above.
7. Rule 19 (i) of the Rules of 1965 reads as under:
Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to Rule 18 -
(i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or xxxxx xxxxx the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit.
8. Instruction No. 2 (i) under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 which came to be issued vide Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, O.M. No. F 43/57/64-AVD (III), dated the 29th November, 1966, as amended by Govt. of India, C.S., (Dept. of Per.), O.M. No. 371/3/74-AVD (III), dated the 19th September, 1975, reads as under:
(i) In a case where a Government servant has been convicted in a Court of Law of an offence which is such as to render further retention in public service of a Government servant prima facie undesirable, the Disciplinary Authority may, if it comes to the conclusion that an order with a view to imposing a penalty on the Government servant on the ground of conduct which had led to his conviction on a criminal charge should be issued, issue such an order without waiting for the period of filing an appeal, or, if an appeal has been filed without waiting for the decision in the first Court of appeal. Before such an order is passed, the Union Public Service Commission should be consulted where such consultation is necessary.
9. In view of the provisions contained in Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 read with Instruction No. 2 (i) issued vide OM dated 29.11.1966, we are of the considered view that there is no merit whatsoever in the contention of learned Counsel that before passing the order of dismissal, an enquiry had to be held. The only requirement was that the applicant should be issued a show-cause with regard to quantum of punishment and that procedure indeed had been followed. Rule 19 (i) of the Rules of 1965 and Instruction No. 2 under Rule 19 of the said Rules are not under challenge. We are of the firm view that the sentence imposed upon the applicant is commensurate to the misconduct alleged against him.
10. Having found no merit in the Application, we dismiss the same in limine.