Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.2. Adding to his submissions, learned counsel submitted that the applicant herein also seeks directions to the respondent to acknowledge his nomination as the Ombudsman & Ethics Officer in Uttarakhand Cricket Association (UKCA).

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the Rules governing the applicant herein are Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (in particular Rule 15 of the said Rules) and Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 (in particular Rule 16 of the said Rules). Together Rule 15 of the Rules, 1964 and Rule 16 of the Rule, 2021 lay down the legal regime governing the conditions mandated in case a Member/Chairperson of a Tribunal accepts an assignment outside his official duties. He submitted that in the instant case the assignment undertaken by the applicant is purely for the purpose of promotion of sports and the UKCA is a registered association devoted to promotion of sports and, therefore, there is no need to seek sanction/permission from Item No. 40/C-IV OA No. 1860/2024 respondent; still the respondent has undertaken the exercise of scrutiny and illegally issued the impugned orders. Learned counsel added that the only embargo provided by the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 on serving Members/Chairperson is for taking assignments outside their duties such as "arbitration assignment".

7. ANALYSIS :

Item No. 40/C-IV                                                           OA No. 1860/2024



7.1     Fulcrum on which the adjudication of the present

matter        hinges     is,   as   to      whether,       nomination          as

"Ombudsman" can be regarded as "arbitration assignment"

vis-a-vis the meaning and scope of Rule 16(3) of the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021?"

UNDERLYING               CONCEPT            OF        "Ombudsman"           and

"Arbitration"

8.4 The rule 'Expressio unius est exclusio alterius' means that, the express mention of one thing is the exclusion of other. The general meaning of "expression of one thing is the exclusion of another" is also known as the negative implication rule. This rule assumes that the legislature intentionally specified one set of criteria. The "arbitration assignment" spelt out in Rule 16(3) cannot be by any stretch of imagination construed to be of same nature to that of "Ombudsman" .

8.5 The nomination of the applicant as "Ombudsman" can neither be construed to be an incapacity of a Chairman or member to the Tribunal nor contrary to Rule 16(3) of the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 and to be equated with that of "arbitration assignment" or substitute or synonymous. In fact, the respondent themselves relied upon the well recognized concept in chapter X-employment of Honorary Workers, Clause (2) which postulates "Honorary employment should be offered only to such persons as have rendered meritorious services or are eminent in public life and have a striking reputation for integrity". Further-more, Clause 3 postulates "Services of Item No. 40/C-IV OA No. 1860/2024 an honorary worker should be utilized only in an advisory capacity. The work to be entrusted to him should not be such as would involve exercise of executive, administrative or judicial powers as the holder of a civil post or exercise of authority in the name, or on behalf, of Government. It may not be necessary to enforce the requirements of this clause in the case of persons who have previously held a high office under Government."

Item No. 40/C-IV OA No. 1860/2024

(v) Reliance placed by the respondents on Rule 15 (4) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules to claim that the remuneration involved with the office of Ombudsman CAU is completely misplaced and incorrect. The remuneration linked to assignment of Ombudsman CAU is not in the nature of fees as the same is neither condition precedent to accepting the offer nor can be claimed as a matter of right after accepting the offer by the Applicant. More importantly the assignment of Ombudsman of CAU is not an assignment of permanent nature, in fact Article 41 (2) of the Constitution of CAU, the Ombudsman CAU is free to decide the place of hearing and therefore there is no compulsion or requirement to leave the place of functioning of the Appellate Tribunal to cater to the functioning of Ombudsman CAU as and when required. 8.9 The communication dated 02.08.2023 sent by the applicant as intimation about nomination as "Ombudsman" is distinct from "arbitration assignment" in terms of Rule 16, wherein no prior sanction is required. There is no "conflict of interest" or same would be an impediment in performance of duties as Chairman, Appellate Tribunal or otherwise. Moreover, the nomination is having force of acceptance of recommendation of Committee as observed in BCCI case (supra).