Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
B.R.Suman vs Union Govt. Of India on 6 May, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH TA 1446/2009 New Delhi this the 6th day of May, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V.K.Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) B.R.Suman, S/o Sh.Mangal Singh, R/o B. Extn-2, Pepalwala Road, Mohan Garden, New Delhi-59. Applicant (By Advocate Ms. Asha Jain Madan) VERSUS 1. Union Govt. of India, Ministry of Rural Development, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 through its Secretary. 2. The Chairman, Council for Advancement of Peoples Action & Rural Technology (CAPART), India Habitat Centre, Zone-5-A (Core-C), 2nd Floor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 3. The Director General, Council for Advancement of Peoples Action & Rural Technology (CAPART), India Habitat Centre, Zone-5-A (Core-C), 2nd Floor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. Respondents (By Advocate Shri Alakh Kumar) O R D E R Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A):
The Applicant had filed a Writ Petition number 927/2002 on 04.02.2002 before the Honourable Delhi High Court, which was transferred to this Tribunal by order dated 26.08.2009, when this Tribunal acquired jurisdiction over the service matters of Counsel for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology (CAPART). The Writ Petition has been renumbered as Transfer Application number 1446/2009.
2. The order dated 17.04.2000, contained in the minutes of the 29th meeting of the Executive Committee of CAPART, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the Applicant has been assailed in this TA. The following reliefs have been sought:
a) quash or set aside the order dated 17.4.2000.
b) direct the CAPART to re-instate the petitioner with full back wages and all the benefits which he would have accrued being in service.
c) direct the CAPART to treat the services of the petitioner continuous without any break.
d) pass any other or further order (s) as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in this case.
3. B R Suman, the Applicant herein, was working as Assistant Director in CAPART at the relevant time. CAPART supports, by way of grants, Voluntary Organisations (VO), which take up projects for the benefit of disadvantaged groups, people below poverty line, people living in remote areas et cetera. A Memorandum of Charge dated 12.01.1998, levelling the following charge against the Applicant, was served upon him:
In 1993-94 while functioning as AD, Shri Suman had dealt with a project of a voluntary organization namely Gulab Singh Mahila and Bal Kalyan Sang, Dist. Siwan (Bihar) for construction of 40 hand-pumps in Gandey Block of Giridh Dist. The proposal was received in CAPART through Sr. Dir. (Shri Machhal) on the 27-10-94, and it was processed, examined and approval of competent authority obtained on the same date. Shri Suman had issued the sanction next day i.e. on 28-10-94. The RA, in his examination of the proposal had alluded to previous projects executed by the above VO and also a favourable report of a monitor on earlier sanctioned projects. Shri Suman had not asked for any such previous reference for proper examination of the fresh proposal. Nor Shri Suman had pointed out, in his note, an important factor that the VO was based in district Siwan though the project was for Giridh Distt, 300 KMs away.
An important pre-requisite for release of CAPART financial assistance is a resolution of executive body of VO accepting terms and conditions of CAPARTs sanction. This resolution was reportedly passed by the VO at 8 A M on 30-10-94, at Siwan and was personally handed over to CAPARTs officers on the very next date i.e. on 31-10-94. This is obviously improbable. Apparently the representation of the VO had already brought the resolution along with him on 27-10-94, and had been sitting all along in Delhi and had produced the resolution on 31-10-94, on receipt of the acceptance resolution. The proposal for release of Rs. 4.8 lakhs was dealt with on the same day i.e. on 31-10-94, by RA (M.P. Singh) and AD (Suman). For certain reasons, the release of funds could not take place. Nevertheless, Shri Suman had exhibited undue haste in examination of the project and to that extent Shri Suman had contravened sub-rule 3 (1) (i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The inquiry authority submitted his report on 12.11.1998. While summing up his conclusions the inquiry authority, inter alia, observed as follows:
Promptness or haste or urgency in handling of cases in Govt. or its instrumentalities is not culpable by itself; in fact these are qualities that deserve appreciation. But when promptness or haste or urgency begin to smack of being Undue, particularly in matters involving finances, financial sanctions or release of funds or other benefits, the whole exercise begins to look suspect. When the examination and handling of such matter is found to be incomplete, improper, perfunctory, superficial, mechanical or slip shod, the suspicions of malafide or improver motive get strengthened.
In the instant case, there has been inexplicable Haste in its processing. The Haste was undue for there was no justification for skipping over proper and detailed examination. Coupled with Undue Haste has been overwhelmingly in evidence Slip Shod examination, or misleading examination. The case has therefore all the elements that make the entire exercise look motivated. The disciplinary authority, the Director General of CAPART, echoed the observations of the inquiry authority and noted the reasons for imposing punishment on the Applicant thus:
ANDWHEREAS the report of the Inquiry Officer and the submissions made by Shri B.R. Suman have been very carefully considered by the Executive Committee of CAPART at its meeting held on 24th March, 2000. On careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case the Executive Committee observed that the charge proved against Shri B R Suman, Assistant Director relates to the processing of the case for sanction and release of funds exhibiting undue haste and without appropriate examination establishes the nexus between Shri B R Suman and the V.O. and it creates the doubt about his integrity and dishonest intentions. Taking an overall view in the matter the Committee felt that his continuance in service under CAPART will not be in public interest. It is accordingly felt that good and sufficient reasons exist for imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on Shri B.R. Suman, AD. The Executive Committee of CAPART also observed that the matter had been examined by the Applicant inadequately and such examination would establish unholy nexus between the Voluntary Organisation and the Applicant, casting doubts on his integrity "as he would not have acted in a manner he did without any mala-fide and dishonest intentions."
4. The learned counsel for the Applicant would point out on the basis of the reading of the above passages that he has been punished for reasons, which have not been stated in the Memorandum of Charge. She would contend that the only charge against the Applicant was that he had exhibited undue haste in examination of the project. There was no charge of nexus between him and the Voluntary Organisation and also that there had been no appropriate examination of the proposal. It was submitted that the conclusion of the inquiry authority that the examination and handling of the matter by the charged officer was incomplete, improper, perfunctory, superficial, mechanical or slipshod, strengthening the suspicions of mala fides or improper motive was based on speculation and presumption. There was not even a hint in the Article of Charge or the imputation of misconduct about skipping over proper and detailed examination. Similarly, there was no mention of slipshod work in the charge sheet. She would argue that the institution itself had issued a circular dated 01.12.1995 exhorting the employees to process the cases quickly. It was further argued that the sanctioned amount was not given to the Voluntary Organisation. Further, there was no charge that there was any defect in the proposal or the Voluntary Organisation had made a fraudulent proposal. It was pointed out that the proposal was sanctioned by the Deputy Director General of CAPART and no action whatsoever was taken against him before he passed away.
5. The learned counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, would vehemently contend that the Voluntary Organisation was located in Siwan district of Bihar, whereas the proposed work was to be taken up in Giridih district, which was about 300 km from Siwan. Because of hasty examination by the charged officer, this point was lost sight of. He would point to the noting by the concerned authorities for cancellation of the sanction order and initiation of departmental proceedings against the concerned persons, which, inter alia, read as follows:
This is a very strange project. Though the project proposal appears to be dated 22.11.93 first date of processing is 27.10.94. There is noting that it was handed over to RA personally by the Senior Director.
It appears that obviously it is a case of backdating.
It is also to be noticed that sanction letter is dated 28.10.94 and the terms and conditions have been submitted on 30.10.94. It also appears to have been overwriting in the date of the sanction letter. It is abundantly clear that VA was sitting at Delhi alongwith the resolution and has just submitted the same.
The relevant details of the project have also not been provided. There is no information available in the file. I totally failed to understand on what basis the decision has been taken.
Another point strucks is that Society is at Siwan Distt of Bihar. However, the project has been sanctioned in respect of Giridh which is approximately 300 KMs away from there in the tribal belt of Chota Nagpur.
This is a very serious matter and the DG may like to take note of it.
I would suggest the following:
1.The sanction order be cancelled.
2. Charges are drawn up against persons involved.
3. Legal action is taken after having ascertained mensrea of each of the person involved.
4. Since the matter is very serious the DG may also like to record his impression for his successor Shri M.K.Ranjit Singh.
Sd/-
( 28.01.95) ( B.K.Sinha ) DDG DG It is quite surprising that, there had been complaints of project pending in CAPART for two to three years, a project proposal dated 23 October, 1994, is received on 27 October,1994 and examined, processed and approved all in one day viz., 28.10.94, the terms and conditions are accepted on 31.10.94 and approval to release of Rs.4.8 lakhs is also given on the same date. This does indeed raise several questions regarding the bonafides of the various people who have dealt with the proposal.
Sd/-
(Ashok Jaitley) Director General (CAPART) 04.02.1995. The learned counsel would also point out that earlier a Memorandum had been issued to the Applicant to explain his conduct in the following terms:
A project proposal for installation of 40 I.M. 11 Handpumps in selected villages of Gandey Block of Dist. Giridih, Bihar was received on 20.10.94 from Sh. Gulab Singh Mahila Evam Bal Kalyan Sangh by the Sr. Director. It was examined by Shri M.P.Singh, R.A. on 27.10.94 in which he recommended sanction of an amount of Rs.7,16,010/- for the implementation of the Project. The proposal was approved by Shri B.R. Suman, A.D. on the same date. The Sr. Director and DDG (P) also approved the project on 27.10.94 itself. The sanction was issued on 28.10.94. The V.A. approved the terms and conditions on 30.10.94 and the case was put up for release of 70% of the sanctioned amount viz. Rs.4,79,800/- on 31.10.94 by Shri M.P.Singh, R.A. The proposal was approved by Shri B.R.Suman, A.D on 31.10.94. The then Sr. Director and DDG (P) also put their stamp of approval on 31.10.94.
2. The facts of the case as narrated above reveal that the said Project Proposal received on 27.10.94 was examined, processed and approved all on one day viz. 27.10.94. The sanction letter was issued the next day on 28.10.94. The terms and conditions were accepted on 31.10.94 and approval for the release of Rs. 4,79,800/- was also given on the same date. Thus the entire Project got the approval in just 3 consecutive working days (29th & 30th Oct., 94 being closed days). It appears that V.A. was just sitting in Delhi alongwith the Resolution and submitted the same. It is further noticed that V.A. had not provided the relevant details of the Project and even then, the approval was accorded without raising any query. It is also observed that the society is at Siwan Distt. whereas the Project which was sanctioned was in respect of Giridih Distt which is approximately 300 Kms. away from there in the tribal belt of Chota Nagpur.
It is clear from what is stated above that the Project was sanctioned in haste under questionable circumstances. He would contend that the Memorandum of Charge was issued to the Applicant after considering his explanation to the above Memorandum. The learned counsel would also contend that re-appreciation of evidence was impermissible in judicial review.
6. We have considered the rival contentions with utmost care and have also gone through the documents placed before us by the parties.
7. The principles of natural justice apply fully in the proceedings in disciplinary inquiry. One of the prime requirements of the principles of natural justice is that the charged officer should be given full opportunity to reply to the charges against him/her. It would only be possible if the charges are clearly spelt out in the charge sheet. In the instant case the charges for which punishment has been meted out to the Applicant have not been clearly mentioned in the Articles of Charge read with the imputation of misconduct in support of the articles of charge. The sole charge against the Applicant is that he exhibited undue haste in examination of the project. It is not clear when an expeditious disposal of the project would become a case of undue haste. There is no hint in the charge sheet about incomplete, improper, perfunctory, superficial, mechanical or slipshod examination of the project. The charge sheet does not mention any allegation regarding the nexus between the charged officer and the Voluntary Organisation, which would lead to the conclusion that the intention of the charged officer was mala fide. It cannot be assumed that the phrase 'undue haste' would construe that there was no examination of the case and that it would exhibit the nexus between the charged officer and the Voluntary Organisation, as inferred by the Executive Committee and in the order of the Director General of CAPART. It has also not been explained why it was objectionable or improper for a Voluntary Organisation located in Siwan to take up projects in Giridih, located 300 km from there. There is, in fact, no mention of this fact in the charge sheet. No case has been made out in the charge sheet that there was anything wrong in the sanction. No doubts have been cast on the intention or capability of the Voluntary Organisation to execute the project proposed by it. In the absence of the properly drafted Articles of Charge and imputations of misconduct, giving full details of the alleged irregularity committed by the Applicant, we are of the considered opinion that he has not been given full opportunity to defend himself. The Charge against the Applicant is vague and incomplete and the inquiry authority and the disciplinary authority have gone beyond the charge levelled against the Applicant in holding him guilty and imposing punishment on him. In fact the Respondents are responsible for preparing an incomplete charge sheet and their work has been slipshod. We have not gone into the re-appreciation of the evidence. We are fully justified in interfering because, in the instant case, the misconduct and irregularities for which the Applicant has been punished do not form part of the Memorandum of Charge.
8. In the light of the above analysis the resolution of the Executive Committee and the punishment of compulsory retirement given to the Applicant on the basis of that resolution are not maintainable. The impugned order is quashed and set aside, with the direction to the Respondents to restore the Applicant in service and treat the period from the date of his compulsory retirement to his reinstatement in service as period spent on duty, with all consequential benefits which may accrue to him as per the rules. If, however, the Applicant would have retired on superannuation earlier, he would be considered to have been reinstated in service and would be eligible for revised post-retirement dues. The above directions would be complied with within eight weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. There will be no orders as to costs.
( L.K. Joshi ) ( V.K.Bali ) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman sk