Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Mr. Pradeep Singh Ahluwalia, who appeared in person, has primarily challenged the impugned orders on various grounds including that the penalty of compulsory retirement is hit by Article 311(2) of the Constitution, arbitrary and based on extraneous consideration and denying the opportunity of being heard and of making representation at enquiry stage, more particularly in view of his request to supply supporting documents. In this regard, he has referred to Annexure-H of the documents, which is primarily a reply dated July 5, 2004 on the Enquiry Officer's report wherein he sought certain documents. According to him, the order dated September 18, 2006 is illegal and not maintainable since the penalty of compulsory retirement is based on ex- parte order. The competent authority should have given an opportunity to reply against the proposed penalty before passing such an order, which is an essential element for imposing major penalty. He would also state, that the order of the Disciplinary Authority is without reasons, for passing such a speaking order is an essential element of administration of justice, moreso, when the authority is performing quasi-judicial function. He also imputes malice against Mr. Rajiv Talwar, the M.D & CEO at the relevant time, as according to the petitioner, he made a complaint to the GM, DTDC for misbehaviour and ill-treatment of the petitioner by Mr. Talwar and as such, Mr. Talwar had no jurisdiction to pass an order for enquiry against the petitioner. He also states, that the charge sheet dated March 7, 2003 has not been served upon the petitioner till date. No information has been communicated to the petitioner for initiating proceedings, appointment of Enquiry Officer etc. He also challenges the proceedings held by the Enquiry Officer being in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is his submission, that even the charges, which have been framed against him, are unsustainable. He states, that charge No.1 of coming late to the office did not warrant a major penalty. Further, the charge No.1 became subject-matter of the charge sheet three years after the date of occurrence, which would amply prove that the same was at the behest of Mr. Rajiv Talwar. On charge No.2 as well, it is his submission that the same is unsustainable. According to him, the allegations that while posted in Noida and on closure of Noida office in February 2001, petitioner was surrendered to Chief Manager, Tourism vide note dated February 20, 2001 and was directed to report to Personal Division on March 1, 2001, but did not report to the place of posting. The petitioner kept signing absentee statement in order to receive salary from March 16, 2001 to February 15, 2002. The absentee statement was sent to Manager, Salary directly without getting counter-signed or verified by Controlling Officer despite the fact, he was not reporting to duty. According to the petitioner, when he was posted to Noida office, on February 13, 2001, he suffered a heart attack and admitted to the Escorts Hospital on the authorisation letter issued by the Personal Division of the Corporation. The petitioner remained in hospital from February 16, 2001 to February 24, 2001 with the direction for re- admission after one week. It is clear that the respondent No.2 Corporation was in the knowledge of admission of the petitioner in the hospital. He would state, that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cheat the Corporation. He states, there was no animus, which was also not proved by the respondent No.2. Even otherwise, the respondent No.2 could have detected at the earliest when the petitioner first submitted absentee statement for the salary but the respondent No.2 did not do so but did it after knowing of heart attack and after a year of submission of absentee report to the Manager, Salary Division who is the financial authority. He also placed reliance on the medical certificate issued by the Escorts Hospital. According to him, there was non- application of mind on the part of the Appellate Authority as well. The penalty of compulsory retirement is a camouflage act of dismissal by authority on the ground of misconduct. He reiterated his submission on denial of principles of natural justice. I note, that the petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit in the petition, wherein, he had stated that the finding by the Enquiry Officer is based on wrong and false material by PW 5 Mr. M.S. Sridhar with regard to transfer of the petitioner to Catering Division, which according to the petitioner is vide office order dated March 13, 2002. He also alleged bias against the Enquiry Officer Mr. K.B. Sharma who had ignored the prior report of Mr. V.K. Jatav, Deputy Manager, Information Office. He also alleged tampering of the absentee statements prepared by the petitioner as In-charge of Noida Information Office before the same were put to the competent authority. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention:-

14. Insofar as the charge No.2 is concerned, the Enquiry Officer relied upon the testimony of PW 3 Sh.Piyush Aggarwal, PW 4 Jagat Singh, PW 5 M.S. Sridhar, PW 6 Ajay Kumar, PW 7 B.L.Indora and PW 8 Mrs. Asha Ahluwalia to hold that the charges stand proved. The witnesses deposed that the petitioner was transferred from Tourism Division (Noida Information Counter) to the Catering Division on March 1, 2001. The petitioner never reported to the Catering Division. All the absentee statements were signed by the petitioner. The petitioner has not contested these statements in his representation to the Enquiry Officer's report, in fact, the petitioner has not commented on the merit of the charges at all. The Disciplinary Authority was justified to accept the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer by imposing penalty. But in his appeal dated October 16, 2006 on charge No.2, the petitioner has stated as under:-

Now as regard signing the absentee statement for the period of 16.02.2001 to 15.02.2002, since I was in continuation as Incharge of Information Office at Noida. I kept exercising the powers and privileges till I was transferred in the Catering Division of the Corporation vide office order No.F- 7/162/83/DTTDC/Part file/1259 dated 01.03.2002. Therefore, I was authorized to sign the absentee statements from 16.02.2001 to 15.02.2002. The practice that I followed in the past since 1992 onwards of sending the absentee and other documents to various authorities without getting them countersigned or verified by my controlling officer, in following the customary practice".

15. The above stand of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has categorically made an averment that the transfer order dated March 1, 2001 was not served on him transferring him to catering division and after his recovery from treatment, he continued to work as In-charge, Noida Information Office and continued to send the absentee statements till February 15, 2002, is relevant. The same may have bearing on the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the merit of Charge 2, which may have also bearing on the penalty. The Appellate Authority has not given any conclusion on this particular stand taken by the petitioner, in the appeal.