Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Krishi Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001.

2. The Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Krishi Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001.

3. Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Krishi Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001.

........... Petitioners.

-Vs -

Dr. Yash Gupta, Ex. Senior Scientist, Central Potato Research Station, Peak View Road, Shilling, Meghalaya-793009.

2. Having considered the submissions, made by learned counsel of both side, both the writ cases are taken up together for hearing and disposal, since the cases arose out of same incident and identical question of law and fact, involved in both the cases for decision by this Court. Therefore, this common judgment shall govern both the cases.

3. NRCM is an organization having its office/establishment at Solan, Himachal Pradesh under ICAR. The petitioners, herein, are the superior authorities/disciplinary authorities of the respondents in the ICAR. Dr. Dayal, respondent of WP(C) No.4569 of 2010 and Dr. Gupta, respondent of WP(C) No.5248 of 2010, were found guilty of gross misconduct in the disciplinary proceedings drawn against them separately for the same incident occurred on 23.09.2003 and the disciplinary authorities inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement against both the respondents and, they, by filing separate Original Applications(in short, O.A.) before the Central Administrative Tribunal(in short, CAT), Guwahati Bench, challenged the orders of the disciplinary authority and, the CAT, by impugned order dated, 04.09.2009, passed in O.A. No.299 of 2007, filed by Dr. Dayal, and by order dated, 06.04.2010, passed in O.A. No.218 of 2008, filed by Dr. Gupta, set aside and quashed the order of the disciplinary authority, and, hence, the disciplinary authorities, i.e., the present petitioners, by filing the aforenoted writ petitions, challenged the orders of the CAT on various grounds.

4. We have heard learned counsel, Mr. D. Majumdar and learned counsel, Mr. R. Sarma for the petitioners and learned counsel, Mr. A. Ahmed and learned counsel, Mr. P. Gogoi for the respondents, in both the cases.

5. Fact of the case, in short, is that, on 23.09.2003, Dr. R.N. Verma, Ex-Director of NRCM and incumbent President of Mushroom Society of India (in short, MSI), while visiting Solan, was invited by the Director of NRCM to participate in a discussions in the seminar of the Executive Committee meeting of MSI and, accordingly, Dr. Verma attended the institute of NRCM at about 3.00 pm and had discussions with the Centre Director about the activities of the NRCM and, thereafter, at about 4.00 pm, he was invited by Dr. R.C. Upadhyay of MSI to preside over the meeting of MSI and, accordingly, he participated in the meeting and was presiding over it. At about 5.00 pm, Dr. Verma went to the toilet, and while he was returning from the toilet to the meeting room Dr. Robin Gogoi, a scientist of the institute, met him in the corridor and was exchanging pleasantries with him. At that time, Dr. Dayal waylaid Dr. Verma saying "Adab arj hain Doctor sahib" and, immediately, attacked Dr. Verma and slapped him on his face. Dr. Gupta also arrived there and insisted Dr. Dayal to beat Dr. Verma. Dr. Shwet Kamal, another scientist of the institute, who was in the door of the meeting room, rushed there and both Dr. Kamal and Dr. Gogoi disengaged Dr. Dayal from further assaulting Dr. Verma. In the meantime, hearing noise the trainees and executive members of the MSI, all came out and learnt about the occurrence. Dr. Verma got perturbed and extremely shocked in the incident and in the meantime, Dr. Dayal and Dr. Gupta went away from the spot. Director of the institute was reported about the incident and an FIR was lodged to the police. A police case was accordingly registered and investigation was taken up. The matter was reported to the superior authority i.e. the ICAR and, accordingly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated separately for the same incident against the respondents. PROCEEDING AGAINST DR. DAYAL 5.1 Issuing Memo. No.F.3(2)/2004-Vig(D), dated 01.06.2004 ICAR initiated disciplinary proceeding against Dr. Dayal with specific Article of Charge, which reads thus:

5.4 It is alleged that Dr. Dayal, from the very beginning, was non-cooperative and had taken dilatory tactics to frustrate the smooth inquiry. He was served with the charge sheet on 28.07.2004 and was asked to submit his statement of defence but even after reminders issued on 14.09.2004, 07.10.2004, 10.11.2004, 23.02.2005, he did not submit his written statement in respect of the charges framed against him, on the contrary, he brought some baseless allegations against the inquiry officer and those allegations were referred to the ICAR and it was found totally unfounded and baseless and, therefore, the disciplinary authority turned down the allegation of bias raised against the inquiry officer. He was requested by the inquiry officer to submit the name of his defence assistant but he insisted for appointing a legal practitioner, which was rejected, since legal practitioner was not representing the disciplinary authority. The inquiry officer asked the Charged Officer, Dr. Dayal, to furnish the details of his defence assistant in writing on 20.03.2006, 19.05.2006, 14.08.2006 and 20.10.2006 but the charged officer did not take any effective step. It is also alleged that charged officer submitted a list of fifty six numbers of documents, out of which four documents were found to be relevant and those were supplied to the charged officer but, still, he did not submit his response and did not participate effectively in the proceedings. On the issue of appointment of defence assistant he took abnormal time and, ultimately, submitted a tour programme and demanded travelling allowance for finding out his defence assistant. He, ultimately, named the Director General of ICAR, Dr. Mangal Rai as his defence assistant. Since he neither submitted his defence statement nor was effectively participating in the proceedings, the inquiry officer, after exhausting the formalities and affording all reasonable opportunities to the charged officer, fixed the case for recording evidence of the disciplinary authority. But the charged officer was absent on 12.04.2007 sending a medical certificate of illness from a private doctor and, therefore, the inquiry officer asked the charged officer to take a second medical opinion from a Govt./authorized medical attendant and to submit the same by fax within 14.04.2007, but that was never submitted by the charged officer. Again the proceeding was fixed for recording evidence of the witnesses of disciplinary authority from 09.07.2007 to 11.07.2007 and by a notice, dated 25.05.2007, the charged officer was duly informed and, thereafter, was also reminded on 14.06.2007, but on that date again by sending a medical certificate from a private doctor, the charged officer remained absent and, under such circumstances, the inquiry officer recorded the evidence of disciplinary authority ex parte on 10.07.2007 and 11.07.2007. The charged officer, thereafter also, did not participate in the proceeding and did not adduce any defence evidence. On 28.08.2007, the inquiry officer submitted his report ex parte against the charged officer holding that the charge framed against the charged officer has been proved and sent the report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, by sending a copy of the report, asked the charged officer to submit his reply and, accordingly, the charged officer submitted his reply. In the meantime, the criminal case instituted against the respondents, on the basis of the FIR lodged immediately after the occurrence, which was registered as Criminal Case No.245/2 of 2003 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, was ended by an order, dated 2206.2007, and both the accused, i.e., the respondents were acquitted on benefit of doubt. After that judgment, the respondents applied for dropping the disciplinary proceedings in view of their acquittal from the criminal case. The disciplinary authority, considering the enquiry report, the reply submitted by the respondent and also considering the evidence and materials on record, including that of the judgment passed by the criminal court, found the respondent guilty of misconduct and imposed the penalty of 'compulsory retirement' by order, dated 05.11.2007. The relevant order passed by the disciplinary authority, dated 05.11.2007, reads thus: