Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1550
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, DEEPA SHARMA, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Shiwa Shankar Singh - Respondent
W.P. (C) 868 of 2015 & C.M. No. 1523 of 2015
Decided On : 18-05-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari
For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Aggarwal
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Disciplinary Authority has the authority to accept or reject the advice/consultation of the UPSC in disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceedings - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14, Rule 15 - Summary of Acts and Sections: CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii); Rule 11; Rule 14(18); Rule 15(2A); Rule 15(4) - The court discussed the disciplinary proceedings under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, specifically focusing on Rule 14 and Rule 15. The court also highlighted the provisions of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, particularly Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) and Rule 11. The interpretation and application of these rules influenced the court's decision in reaching its judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved disciplinary proceedings against a government servant for grave irregularities and misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and referred the matter to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) for second stage advice. The CVC advised imposition of a major penalty, which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The case was then referred to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for consultation on the quantum of penalty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Disciplinary Authority had complied with the procedural requirements under Rule 15(2A) and Rule 15(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The court held that the consultation with the UPSC was in accordance with the law, and the Disciplinary Authority had the authority to accept or reject the advice/consultation of the UPSC. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the compliance with procedural requirements under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and the authority of the Disciplinary Authority to accept or reject the advice/consultation of the UPSC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Disciplinary Authority had the authority to accept or reject the advice/consultation of the UPSC. The court also emphasized that the consultation with the UPSC was in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.
Vipin Sanghi, J.
1. The petitioner/Union of India assails the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in OA 44/2013. The said OA preferred by the respondent was allowed by the tribunal. It set aside the orders: dated 17.11.2011 – passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty upon the respondent; dated 20.12.2011 – passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the departmental appeal of the respondent, and; dated 21.12.2011 – granting approval of the competent authority to the imposition of penalty against the respondent. Consequential reliefs have also been granted to the respondent by the Tribunal.
2. The President, being the Disciplinary Authority, issued a memorandum dated 22.01.2007 proposing to hold a departmental inquiry against the respondent under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (‘Rules’). The substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, in respect whereof the inquiry was proposed to be held were as follows:
“(I) That Shri S.S. Singh while working as AGM(NP) in Bihar Telecom Circle committed grave irregularity by initiating proposal on 04.11.1991 to procure 40 M tower from M/s Kanhai Engineering Towers (Pvt.) Ltd. on the rate approved by DE M/W Project Patna though the Tower was centralized item and CGMT was not authorized to procure the same.
(II) That the said Shri S.S. Singh entered into an agreement with M/s KEP ltd for procurement of Tower without specific quantity and definite liability.
(III) That the said Shri S.S. Singh while working in Bihar Telecom Circle during 1991-92 and 1993-94 committed grave irregularities by not routing the proposal for procurement of Tower through IFA for financial concurrence and took several decisions having financial implications without financial concurrence of IFA.
(IV) That the said Shri S.S. Singh had proposed to modify the terms of payment in four parts though there was no such provision in the agreement which had put the department to loss of interest on that amount which had been paid in four parts before actual completion of the work.
(V) That the said Shri S.S. Singh had proposed for payment of 90% of contractor’s bill bearing No. GMD/HZB/TS/93-94 dated 21.05.1993 for Rs.4,09,662/- pertaining to Hazaribagh 50M tower without actual receipt of the tower and furnished a certificate in this regard ignoring departmental rules as well as terms of contract and put the department to loss to the tune of Rs.4,09,662/- as the said tower is still unreceipted to the department.
Thus by his above acts, the said Shri S.S. Singh committed misconduct, failed to maintain absolute integrity, exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 3 (1)(i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (conduct), Rules 1964”.
3. The respondent gave his written statement denying the charges and, consequently, regular departmental inquiry was held. The Inquiry Officer (IO) gave his report dated 27.01.2009, holding that articles of charge (I), (II) and (V) stand proved beyond reasonable doubt, while articles of charge (III) and (IV) were held as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority remitted the case to the IO on the ground that during the conduct of the inquiry, the respondent was not generally questioned by the IO on the circumstances appearing against him, and the evidences were not put to him as required by Rule 14(18) of the aforesaid Rules. Consequently, the IO complied with the directions of the Disciplinary Authority and submitted his second inquiry report dated 13.01.2010. On this occasion, the IO held that the articles (III) and (IV) stood partially proved, but articles (I), (II), and (V) were held as not proved.
4. We may at this stage itself observe that the record shows that on 06.03.2010, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the
