TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng malice are also vague. Likewise, all the allegations raised regarding the violation of statute have been dealt with comprehensively by the respondents in their order dated 28.02.2014. Therefore, we see no point at present to interfere with the chargesheet and leave all the issues open to be adjudicated before the departmental proceedings or any future proceedings that may follow. - no merit in the OA and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. - Decided against appellant. - OA No.15/2014 - - - Dated:- 13-10-2014 - Mr. Syed Rafat Alam and Dr. B.K. Sinha, JJ. For the Appellant : Sh. A.K. Behera with Sh. V.K. Jain, Sh. Amit Khemka, Sh. S.K. Pau and Ms. Sanorita), Mr B V Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Rajesh Katyal ORDER By Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A): The instant Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 impugning the OM dated 10.09.2013 (Annexure A-1 page 32 of the paper book) initiating departmental proceedings against the applicant under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1965 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut were later released without any valid reason. Article of charge No.4 makes out that there were glaring inconsistencies in the statement of the applicant before the Directorate of Vigilance, inasmuch as he initially stated that the decision to impose nakabandi and to lift the same had been taken by him in consultation with the subordinate officers following due discussions, but when confronted with the facts, he altered his stand in his later statement dated 21.02.2013. 4. The above four Articles of charge indicate lack of devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a Government servant thereby contravening the provisions of Rules 3(I)(i), 3(I)(ii) and 3(I)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Thereafter, to cut the story short, the applicant asked for copies of the relied upon documents, i.e., RUDs and appropriately signed Memorandum of Charges so that he could give an effective reply to the charges. 5. The case of the applicant is that the respondents investigated anonymous complaint without following the due process and contrary to the circulars on the subject. On 01.10.2012, the CVC concurrence was received for investigating the anonymous complaint b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Union of India Another versus Vineet Ohri [WP(C) No.7914/2009 decided on 10.07.2009]. 10. On behalf of the respondents Sh. Rajesh Katyal, learned counsel had submitted that issuance of chargesheet does not give rise to the cause of action for filing an OA before the Tribunal being pre-matured and referred to the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.623/2013, as also the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others versus A.N. Saxena [1992 (3) SCC 124]. 11. The earlier Bench of the Tribunal having taken note of the above submissions passed the following order in the later part of Paragraph-7 of the order, which is as under:- 7. We find that it is initial stage of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant and it would be convenient for the disciplinary authority also to apply its mind to various grounds raised by the applicant regarding the procedural irregularities in issuance of the charge sheet. Continuance of the disciplinary proceedings and conclusion thereof with doubt regarding the procedural propriety of the commencement of the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e disciplinary proceedings against the applicant had the prior sanction of the Finance Minister and, hence, was without authority or that the decision to initiate disciplinary enquiry and to issue chargesheet had been taken distinctly, independently and without any influence; the defence version were not taken or made available to the CVC along with the chargesheet as the draft articles of charge complete in all respects were to be made available to the CVC. 13. These points have been considered in detail by the concerned Under Secretary and need not be reproduced in toto. In sum and substance, the Under Secretary had held that though the complaints were anonymous, there were certain verifiable facts. The applicant had been declared unfit by the DPC for reasons other than the pending vigilance investigation or departmental proceedings contemplated/initiated against him. The provisions of Rule 14 (4) of the Rules of 1965 have already been complied with to their requirements. Accordingly, the chargesheet dated 10.09.2013 along with statement of articles of charge, statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and list of documents by which and list of witnesses by whom th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advice. 14. After having considered all these facts carefully, the disciplinary authority arrived at a conclusion that there was no substance in the grounds raised by the applicant in his representation dated 01.02.2014 including the pleas taken in the instant OA filed by him before this Tribunal. 15. The respondents, having received the order dated 28.02.2014 disposing of the representation of the applicant dated 01.02.2014, have filed their detailed reply. The question that we are here confronted with is purely a legal one as to the scope of interference with the disciplinary proceeding in an application u/s 18 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 16. We take note of the fact that time and again the Hon le Supreme Court have been cautioning the subordinate courts not to act as the superior appellate authority or to go into the merits of the case or take decision to quash the chargesheet at the initial stage before completion of the departmental proceedings, unless malafide, infringement of some statutory rules or some glaring procedural irregularities serious enough to vitiate the proceedings were to be established. In this regard, the Hon ble Supreme Court in a la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pined that the present case is fully covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of 'the said decision, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be upheld . Evidently because the said appeal was preferred against an interlocutory order made by the Tribunal, the Bench directed the Tribunal to deal with the original application in the light of the decision in A.N. Saxena2. The Bench directed expressly that the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were to continue. 4. When the matter went back to the Tribunal, it went into the correctness of the charges on the basis of the material produced by the respondent and quashed the charges holding that the charges do not indicate any corrupt motive or any culpability on the part of the respondent. We must say, we are not a little surprised at the course adopted by the Tribunal. In its order dated September 10, 1992 this Court specifically drew attention to the observations in A.N. Saxena2 that the Tribunal ought not to interfere at an interlocutory stage and yet the Tribunal chose to interfere on the basis of the material which was yet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulate the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of granting such writs in 3 (1955) 1 SCR 250. English law, the exercise of jurisdiction becomes rudderless and unguided, it tends to become arbitrary and capricious. There will be no uniformity of approach and there will be the danger of the jurisdiction becoming personalized. The parameters of jurisdiction would vary from Judge to Judge and from Court to Court. (Some say, this has already happened.) Law does advance. Jurisprudence does undoubtedly develop with the passage of time, but not by forgetting the fundamentals. You have to build upon the existing foundations and not by abandoning them. It leads to confusion; it does not assist in coherence in thought or action. In Union Of India And Another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana [2006 (12) SCC 28], the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:- 13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to reply to the charge-sheet and to raise all the points available to him including those which are now urged on his behalf by learned counsel for the respondent. In our opinion, this was not the stage at which the Tribunal ought to have entertained such an application for quashing the charge-sheet and the appropriate course for the respondent to adopt is to file his reply to the charge-sheet and invite the decision of the Disciplinary Authority thereon. 11. In State of Punjab and Others V. Ajit Singh, (1997) 11 Supreme Court Cases 368, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent No.1. He filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging his suspension as well as charge-sheet. The Writ Petition was allowed by the Single Judge and the LPA filed by the State was also dismissed. In the appeal, filed by State of Punjab, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of quashing the charge-sheet and held as under: We are, however, of the view that the High Court was in error in setting aside the charge- sheet that was served on the respondent in the disciplinary proceedings. In doing so the High Court has gone into the merits of the alleg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capacity, the allegations regarding malice are also vague. Likewise, all the allegations raised regarding the violation of statute have been dealt with comprehensively by the respondents in their order dated 28.02.2014. Therefore, we see no point at present to interfere with the chargesheet and leave all the issues open to be adjudicated before the departmental proceedings or any future proceedings that may follow. 18. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant had been insistent that the files pertaining to the applicant be summoned and examined. Accordingly, we have summoned the files and have gone through the same. We find that there is nothing in the file to suggest any procedural irregularity/mala fide/violation of statutory provisions to vitiate the proceedings or any element of pre-determination or bias against the applicant. We have already noted our observation in respect to articles of charges drawn up against the applicant and have categorically taken a stand that this Tribunal at this stage of the proceedings is neither competent nor does it find it desirable to enter the labyrinth of the articles of charges and the evidence for and against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... illegal. However, the reasoning given for lifting the detention (that the units were under compounded levy) was improper. It has been noted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner that when seen in isolation, the act of the applicant in lifting nakabandi may appear as an error of judgment. However, when seen in totality, it raises serious doubts about the bonafide of these decisions. We further find that the matter has the approval of the Finance Minister dated 05.09.2013 and subsequently the file was further submitted to the Finance Minister after having examined the facts and grounds raised in the representation and was approved through the Chairperson (CBEC), Finance Secretary, MOS(R) and Finance Minister. For the sake of clarity, the relevant part of the note is extracted as below:- 5. However, it is not the case of Shri Praveen Jain that there was inordinate inexplicable delay in issue of charge sheet to him. When the case file was submitted to the disciplinary authority for seeking his orders for initiation of departmental proceedings for major penalty, a draft charge sheet, complete in all respect, with copies of the relied upon documents was submitted. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
