Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Brief facts, as narrated by the applicant in the OA, are that on being selected in the Civil Services Examination [hereinafter referred to as CSE], he joined Indian Postal Service Group 'A' on 30.11.1978 and superannuated on 30.06.2015. It is contended that on 30.10.2010, CBI filed a chargesheet in Special Case no.116/2010 in the Special Court for CBI cases, Greater Mumbai against the applicant and two other private persons under Section 120-C of IPC and Sections 7, 8 and 13(2) r/w 13 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for alleged acceptance of an illegal gratification on 24.02.2010 for issuing No Objection Certificate [NOC] in respect of Plot No.177 in Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation reserved for Post & Telegraph under the Mira Bhayander Development Control Regulations. The applicant denying the allegations challenged the action of the CBI being in violation of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and the matter is pending adjudication before the Apex Court in SLP (Criminal) No.4364/2011. Upon hearing, the Apex Court was of the view that some of issues involved in the case are important enough to be decided by a Constitution Bench and ordered accordingly. It is further submitted by the applicant that despite the fact that the trial in criminal case is yet to begin, the respondent placed him under deemed suspension w.e.f. 25.02.2010 for being in police custody for more than 48 hours. Admittedly, the suspension of the applicant was revoked on 03.11.2011. The respondent vide the impugned order dated 20.06.2011 initiated departmental proceedings against the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for alleged irregularities committed in issuance of NOC in respect of Plot no.177 of Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation reserved for Post & Telegraph under the Mira Bhayander Development Control Regulations with alleged ulterior motive of accepting illegal gratification and being arrested. After initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the applicant was again placed under suspension on 08.11.2011 after disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he continued to be under suspension till his retirement. The applicant contends that he requested the respondent under RTI Act to supply him the copy of file no.16-5/2011-Vig., in which the enquiry was ordered but the same was denied to him. However, after getting the no objection from the applicant, one Mr. Sonam Sharma, Advocate, who also sought the same record, was provided the same. Meanwhile, the disciplinary enquiry got completed and the allegations against him were not found proved. However, the applicant contends that the respondent/disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and decided to get the enquiry conducted through one of its Commissioners for Departmental Inquiries and sent a disagreement note to the applicant vide Memo dated 19.10.2016, which was received by him on 19.11.2016. The applicant also submits that he has repeatedly requested the disciplinary authority to provide him the concerned file wherein the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him was taken and the charge memorandum was issued as he apprehended that the correct position had not been brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority and signatures were obtained in a routine manner. However, the respondent refused to provide the copy of the said file. Being aggrieved, the applicant approached the 1st Appellate Authority and thereafter appealed to the Central Information Commission. During the hearing of the appeal, the respondent gave an undertaking before the CIC that they would supply a copy of the file to the applicant. Accordingly, the CIC passed an order dated 20.01.2015 directing the respondent to provide the required information to the applicant. However, despite giving an undertaking before the CIC, the respondent did not provide the required documents to the applicant and instead filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which is pending. Though the order of the CIC has not been stayed, yet the respondent has not supplied the information to the applicant till date enabling him to file his response.

11. The other major ground placed before us by the applicant is that the charge memorandum, which was approved by the competent authority, was subsequently changed or amended and was issued without seeking approval of the competent authority again.

12. Let us examine the charges. The original charge memorandum was worded as follows:-

"Shri M.S. Bali, HAG level officer of the Indian Postal Service, at present under suspension, while working as Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra & Goa Circle, Mumbai between 14.7.2008 and 24.2.2010 misused his official position by taking on 24.02.2010 the decision to issue NOC in respect of plot no.177 of Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation for Posts & Telegraph under the Mira Bhayander Development Control Regulations, in undue haste without taking into account all the relevant facts, which resulted in an injudicious decision as regards the shifting of Mira Road Post Office, and also failure in addressing major issues related to the reserved plot no.177, and then in undue haste got the NOC letter no.Bldg/4-37/MaujeBhayander/82-83 issued on 24.02.2010 itself by Shri G.R. Nagrale, Assistant Director, Office of PMG Mumbai Region, in an irregular manner to an unauthorized person, with ulterior motive. It is, therefore, alleged that the said Shri M.S. Bali by committing the said grave misconduct, failed to maintain absolute integrity, failed to maintain devotion to duty, and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i), Rule 3(1)(ii) and Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."

The Charge memorandum, which has been issued to the applicant, is worded as follows:-

"Shri M.S. Bali, HAG level officer of the Indian Postal Service, at present under suspension, while working as Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra & Goa Circle, Mumbai between 14.7.2008 and 24.2.2010 misused his official position by taking on 24.02.2010 the decision to issue NOC in respect of plot no.177 of Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation for Posts & Telegraph under the Mira Bhayander Development Control Regulations, in undue haste without taking into account all the relevant facts, which resulted in an injudicious decision as regards the shifting of Mira Road Post Office, and also failure in addressing major issues related to the reserved plot no.177, and then in undue haste got the NOC letter no.Bldg/4-37/MaujeBhayander/82-83 issued on 24.02.2010 itself by Shri G.R. Nagrale, Assistant Director, Office of PMG Mumbai Region, in an irregular manner to an unauthorized person, with ulterior motive of obtaining illegal gratification. He was arrested by the CBI CAN Mumbai on 25.02.2010 on being caught while accepting the bribe. It is, therefore, alleged that the said Shri M.S. Bali by committing the said grave misconduct, failed to maintain absolute integrity, failed to maintain devotion to duty, and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i), Rule 3(1)(ii) and Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."