Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The respondent filed the reply giving the factual matrix of the case and denying the allegation of the applicant that the charge memorandum dated 20.06.2011 issued to him does not have the approval of the competent authority. The respondent submitted that although the Article-1 to the proposed charge memorandum was approved by the competent authority, but when the actual charge memorandum was issued, Article-1 was slightly changed after the vetting was done by CVC. Since the modifications were minor and clarificatory in nature, it was not considered necessary to seek a fresh approval of Competent Authority. The respondent further submitted that since the amendments made in the Article-1 do not change the nature of the charge as the wordings of amendment were very much there in para 26 of the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior, it does not require again to have the approval of the competent authority. The respondent has also taken the ground that if the applicant is challenging the memo dated 20.06.2011, the same is barred and if he is challenging the order dated 19.10.2016, the same is pre-mature for the reason that the disciplinary authority, after considering the inquiry report dated 30.04.2015, disagreed with the same and a disagreement note along with the inquiry report has been given to the applicant to which the applicant has responded vide letter dated 10.02.2017. The applicant has, however, approached this Tribunal without awaiting the outcome of the proceedings.

9. We have carefully considered his arguments and also perused the records. The fact of the matter, as it transpires from the record, is that the approval for initiation of departmental enquiry and issuance of charge memorandum was taken from the Minister on 16.03.2011. The proposal, in fact, which was part of the notings of Assistant Director General (Vig.I) dated 04.03.2011 reads as follows:-

"6. Shri M.S. Bali is an HAG level officer of the Indian Postal Service and Presidential approval is required for disciplinary proceedings against the officer. In view of the circumstances explained above, it is proposed that the case may be submitted to the Hon'ble MOC&IT for his kind consideration and approval for acceptance of the CVC advice dated 02-12-2010 discussed in the first part of this note, for institution of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against Shri M.S. Bali, the then CPMG, Maharashtra & Goa Circle currently under suspension, for the prima-facie irregularities on his part as discussed in detail in para 3 above, on the charge as in para 5 above, and for taking necessary ancillary action as per the rules. Draft memo of charges along with proposed Articles of Charge, Statement of Imputations of misconduct or misbehavior, and lists of documents and witnesses in support of charges, are placed at Flat 'A'." (Emphasis added] The DDG (Vig) & CVO recorded his own note following the above note seeking Minister's approval of para 6 of the note of Assistant Director General (Vig.I) (quoted above).
The file was then signed by the Secretary (Posts) and marked to the Minister. The Minister has signed the file on 16.03.2011 thereby approving para 6 of the Note of the Assistant Director General (Vig.I).

10. It is apparent from the same that a composite approval for initiation of departmental enquiry, proposed memo of charges, articles of charges and statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour has been taken from the Minister on the file. The judgment in Dr. Sahadeva Singh vs. Union of India & Anr. (supra) that the learned counsel for the applicant has placed before us spells out that the approval for initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the approval of charge memorandum are two distinct stages and both the stages need to be properly and legally crossed before an employee is proceeded against departmentally. The ruling nowhere suggests that a composite approval of both the decisions to initiate disciplinary proceedings and of charge memorandum is bad in law. In our own view, such a procedure does not, in any way, vitiate the process of departmental proceedings. It is not uncommon that in many matters in administrative departments, the decision on a particular proposal and the draft of the proposal are both placed before the Executive Head and are approved accordingly. Similarly, in the instant case, we find nothing wrong, legally or otherwise, in Competent Authority accepting and approving the proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and also approving the articles of charge and statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior at the same time.

15. The question before us is whether the amendments made in the charge memorandum substantially or even symbolically alter the basic and substantive nature and scope of the charge and even if it does not, does it require fresh approval from the competent authority?

16. Our considered answer to the above two questions is a definitive 'no'.

17. Now, if we read both the articles of charge as well as para 26 of the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior, both seem in complete harmony and consonance with each other, and it does seem that the expression 'ulterior motive' has been clarified and elaborated by adding the words 'of obtaining illegal gratification. He was arrested by the CBI CAN Mumbai on 25.02.2010 on being caught while accepting the bribe' after the same. Paragraph 26 of the statement of imputations of misconduct and misbehavior clearly mentions that the applicant along with S/Shri Harish Dalmia and Arun Dalmia were arrested on 25.02.2010 while demanding and accepting bribe amounting to Rs.2 crores on giving the aforesaid NOC. It further mentions that "it was found that Shri M.S. Bali had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2 crores from the complainant to issue NOC for land of Shri Pravin Trivedi situated at Mira Road. As per the CBI letter dated 26-02-2010, Shri M.S. Bali was produced in court on 25.02.2010 before the Ld. Spl. Judge, Mumbai and he was remanded to police custody upto 03.03.2010". If the charge memorandum is critically seen along with paragraph 26 of the statement of imputations of misconduct and misbehavior, it becomes abundantly clear that the addition of these words does not at all change the nature and scope of the charge against the applicant. In fact, they need to be deemed as a mere clarification or elaboration of the charges without, in any way, altering the basic nature of the charge or the basic facts on which the charge has been framed. The fact that the same has been mentioned in the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior, which also has the approval of the competent authority, makes such conclusion correct and justified. Therefore, we are of the clear opinion that the addition of a few words as discussed in preceding paragraphs in the charge memorandum does not alter the nature of the charge memorandum.