Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

DELIVERED BY:-

HON'BLE MR. GOKUL CHANDRA PATI, (MEMBER-A) By way of the instant original application, the applicant has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 28.04.2007 passed by the respondent No. 4 (Annexure A-13 to the O.A) imposing the penalty of 'dismissal from service' on the applicant. Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to release all post retiral and pensionary benefits to the applicant.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was initially joined the service as Administrative Officer on 07.07.1977. While working as Chief Administrative Officer (in short CAO), IVRI, Izatnagar, Bareilly he was served with a letter dated 24.07.2006 (Annexure-1 to the O.A) issued by the Chairperson of the Complaint Committee (in short CC) on the basis of complaint made by Smt. Anjali Kushwaha (referred hereafter as complainant) dated 04.05.2006 and he was asked to appear before the CC on 22.08.2006. It is alleged by the applicant that copy of the complaint dated 04.05.2006 by the complainant was not enclosed with the letter dated 24.07.2006. Hence, vide letter dated 31.07.2006 (Annexure-2 to the O.A) written to the CC, the applicant requested for the complaint dated 04.05.2006 which was provided to him by the Chairperson of the CC alongwith letter dated 11.08.2006 (Annexure- 3 and 4 to the O.A).

9. The applicant has filed Rejoinder Reply (in short RR) reiterating the facts in the O.A. It is stated that as per letter dated 27.04.2006 (Annexure R.A-III to the RR), Smt. Anjali Kushwaha never made any complaint against the applicant. It is further stated that complainant was trying to pressurize the applicant to cancel her transfer from IVRI, Bereilly to ADMAS, Bangalore, but since the transfer order was passed by the Director, IVRI, Izatnagar, he refused to cancel her transfer. It is contended that the inquiry committee has been constituted by the authority two step lower in rank to the appointing authority of the applicant. Further, the Inquiry Officer consisted of authority lower in rank than the applicant and the applicant has never been given the reasonable opportunity which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted that the action of the respondents is discriminatory as the applicant has been dismissed from service whereas the similarly charged officer Shri U.K. Shukla , who was also found guilty, was given lesser punishment of stoppage of three increments.

(ii). The cause of action, as stated in the complaint, arose in IVRI, Izatnagar and as per the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishaka case, the CC constituted for IVRI, Izatnagar should have received the complaint and inquired into it. But in this case the complaint was assigned to the CC of the ICAR, New Delhi. Moreover, the complainant had not given any complaint against the applicant when she was working in IVRI, Izatnagar.

(iii). Reasonable opportunity was not given to the applicant by the CC to appear before it to defend the charges and the inquiry was conducted ex-parte against the applicant without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the applicant is disproportionate compared to the charges, since for similar charge another official Shri U.K. Shukla was awarded minor penalty. He further argued that the disciplinary authority acted in a manner to victimize the applicant without extending reasonable opportunity as required under the law. It was also submitted that the main reason for the complaint is the transfer of the complainant from IVRI, Izatnagar to IVRI, Bangalore which was issued with the approval of Director, IVRI. But the complainant felt that the applicant was responsible for her transfer and in spite of her request for cancellation of the transfer, the applicant did not take steps for cancelling the said transfer order. It was also submitted that the applicant was also pressurized to cancel the transfer of the complainant as explained in the R.R.