Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The respondent contested the Memo at the threshold itself on the ground that the charges included allegations of bribery and thus had a vigilance angle. As such, it was averred that it could not have been issued without prior approval of the Central Vigilance Officer (hereinafter referred as “CVO”) as mandated by a circular dated 18.01.2005 of the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication and I.T. (hereinafter referred to as “the Circular”). The Circular advised that all cases of officers below the level of Group ‘A’ involving vigilance angle should be referred to the Directorate for consideration and advice by the CVO of the relevant department. Even for closing the cases after a preliminary enquiry report, the procedure was stated to be mandatory. The circular reads as under:

3. In this background, the respondent assailed the Memo by filing OA No. 421 of 2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). The validity of the Memo was inter alia assailed on the grounds that (a) the mandatory advice of the CVO had not been obtained; (b) the charge memo was vague, non-specific, and in violation of sub-Rule (i)(3) of Rule 14 of the 1965 Rules, and (c) that there had been an inordinate delay in concluding the proceedings. The appellant department contested the petition and the tribunal decided against the respondent by order dated 19.09.2016. We may notice at this stage that the litigation before the Tribunal was not the first round of litigation but was preceded by earlier petitions being filed. The Tribunal opined that the issue of the prior approval of CVO had already been dealt with in an earlier proceeding initiated by the respondent in O.A. No. 861 of 2013. There, it was concluded that the approval was more of a safeguard against dropping of inquiry proceedings against delinquent officials on fictitious grounds. Additionally, the delay in concluding the proceedings was held to be attributable to the respondent on account of repeated petitions alleging bias and related appeals preferred by him. In this context, a direction was issued to conclude the inquiry within 6 months. This order was assailed by the respondent by filing a Writ Petition No. 42546 of 2016 on the sole ground that the Memo had not been issued in compliance of the Circular. The High Court opined that the Circular did not mandate any prior approval of the CVO before issuance of the memo. It was also noted that not all charges against the respondent revolved around allegations of bribery. The respondent then approached this Court by way of SLP(C) No.9571 of 2017.

4. Meanwhile, the departmental proceeding against the respondent culminated in an adverse report against him bearing, Memo No. Vig/Misc./VM/2012/II dated 24.03.2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2017 Memo”) was issued. In terms of the 2017 Memo, none of the charges of bribery were made out against the respondent but all charges relating to procedural lapses on the part of the respondent were held to have been proved. The respondent was inflicted with a punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect.

17. In the facts of the case, the result has arisen after the inquiry but then, at the cost of repetition we may say, there are no adverse consequences to the respondent with respect to the bribery charges, but in fact favourable consequences.

18. We are, thus, of the view that the course adopted by the Tribunal was the appropriate course of action, i.e., the procedural lapses having been found and the bribery allegation having been rejected the appropriate course would have been to examine only the issue of disproportionality of punishment.