Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 174
High Court of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & VEENA BIRBAL, JJ.
National Institute of Fashion Technology
Versus
UOI & Another
WP(C) 969 of 2011
Decided on : 07-02-2013
For the Petitioners:K.B. Upadhayay, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Ms. Sweety Manchanda, Puneet Siddhartha, Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate instructed by R2, Ms. Tinu Bajwa & Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocates.
Headnote:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY - DEPUTY REGISTRAR - CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT - ISSUANCE OF DEBIT NOTES WITHOUT AUTHORITY - PLACING PURCHASE ORDERS WITHOUT COMPETENT AUTHORITY'S APPROVAL - NON-RECEIPT OF MACHINES/EQUIPMENTS - INQUIRY OFFICER'S FINDINGS - DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY'S DECISION - APPELLATE AUTHORITY'S ORDER - REVIEWING AUTHORITY'S ORDER - CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL'S JUDGMENT - PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Deputy Registrar at the National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT), was issued a charge memo alleging misconduct in issuing debit notes without authority, placing purchase orders without competent authority's approval, and non-receipt of machines/equipments. An inquiry officer found him guilty of the charges, and the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The appellate authority and the reviewing authority upheld the dismissal order. The Central Administrative Tribunal, however, set aside the dismissal order and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the so-called debit notes issued by the respondent were mere intimations and not debit notes as defined by the witnesses. The court also found that the respondent was not involved in the purchase of the machines/equipments and that the non-receipt of the machines/equipments was not due to any act or omission on his part. The court further found that the respondent was prejudiced by the department's failure to provide him with certain documents that were crucial to his defense. The court concluded that the departmental authorities had failed to apply their minds to the evidence and that their findings were perverse.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was guilty of misconduct as alleged in the charge memo? 2. Whether the departmental authorities had conducted a fair and impartial inquiry? 3. Whether the respondent was prejudiced by the department's failure to provide him with certain documents? 4. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in setting aside the dismissal order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondent was not guilty of misconduct as alleged in the charge memo. The court found that the so-called debit notes issued by the respondent were mere intimations and not debit notes as defined by the witnesses. The court also found that the respondent was not involved in the purchase of the machines/equipments and that the non-receipt of the machines/equipments was not due to any act or omission on his part. 2. The court held that the departmental authorities had not conducted a fair and impartial inquiry. The court found that the departmental authorities had failed to apply their minds to the evidence and that their findings were perverse. 3. The court held that the respondent was prejudiced by the department's failure to provide him with certain documents that were crucial to his defense. 4. The court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in setting aside the dismissal order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, thereby upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal's judgment that set aside the dismissal order and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. In the year 1986 the respondent No.2 joined National Institute of Fashion Technology i.e. the petitioner as an Assistant Registrar.
2. On December 16, 2004 a charge memo was issued to him alleging as under:- “Article of Charge – I That Shri O.P. Sharma while functioning as Dy. Registrar (Administration), NIFT, New Delhi, during 1997, had raised a debit note dated 30th July, 1997 which is reproduced below:
“An amount of Rs.17,45,126/- (Rupees Seventeen lakhs forty five thousand and one hundred and twenty six only) was spent by NIFT New Delhi on account of payment towards purchase of Steam Finishing Systems (RAMSONS). This amount has to be divided among 5 NIFT Centres at Chennai, Calcutta, Mumbai, Gandhinagar and Hyderabad. The share for your Branch works out to Rs.3,49,025.50 (Rupees Three lakhs forty nine thousand twenty five and paise twenty only)”
The above debit note does not indicate the File and the authority who approved the raising of the debit note. Moreover the said debit note does not indicate the number, type, quality and specifications of the Steam Finishing Systems which had been supposedly purchased for the NIFT Centres by the Head Office. Again the relevant vouchers/bills of purchase, the mode of sending the systems to the Centres have also not been sought. Moreover excepting NIFT Centre Chennai, the other 4 Centres at Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Gandhinagar have not apparently received the same. These irregularities apart, the NIFT Centres at Kolkata, Hyderabad, Gandhinagar have stated that neither the debit note nor the item Steam Finishing Systems (RAMSONS) as mentioned in the debit note have been received by them. Thus Shri O.P. Sharma, has not only committed gross procedural irregularities and shown gross negligence as well as lack of devotion of duty but has also been instrumental for the non-availability of the said items and causing wrongful loss to NIFT. Shri O.P. Sharma has, in the process, violated the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article of Charge – II
That Shri O.P. Sharma while functioning as Dy. Registrar (Administration), NIFT, New Delhi, during 1997, had raised a debit note dated 30th July, 1997 which is reproduced below:
“An amount of Rs.13,01,825/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs one thousand eight hundred twenty five only) was spent by NIFT New Delhi on account of payment towards purchase of Specialized Industrial Sewing Machines. This amount has to be divided among 5 NIFT Centres at Chennai, Calcutta, Mumbai, Gandhinagar and Hyderabad. The share for your Branch works out to Rs.2,06,365/- (Rupees Two lakhs six thousand three hundred sixty five only)”
The above debit note does not indicate the File and the authority who approved the raising of the debit note. Moreover the said debit note does not indicate the number, type, quality and specifications of the Specialized Industrial Sewing Machines which had been supposedly purchased for the NIFT Centres by the Head Office. Again the relevant vouchers/bills of purchase, the mode of sending the systems to the Centres have also not been sought. Moreover excepting NIFT Centre Chennai, the other 4 Centres at Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Gandhinagar have not apparently received the same. These irregularities apart, the NIFT Centres at Kolkata, Hyderabad, Gandhinagar have stated that neither the debt note nor the item Specialized Industrial Sewing Machines have been received by them. Thus Shri O.P. Sharma, has not only committed gross procedural irregularities and shown gross negligence as well as lack of devotion of duty but has also been instrumental for the non-availability of the said items and causing wrongful loss to NIFT. Shri O.P. Sharma has, in the process, violated the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article of Charge – III
That Shri O.P. Sharma while functioning as Dy. Registrar (Administration), NIFT, New Delhi, during 1997, had raised a debit note dated 30th July,
