Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2461
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HIMA KOHLI, REKHA PALLI, JJ.
B.S.N.L & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Ram Pratap & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 3612 of 2017 & CM No. 15859 of 2017 (stay)
Decided On : 17-08-2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.V. Sinha with Mr. A.S. Singh, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Lalit Kumar Jha, Mr. Kavindra Gill, Advs.
Delay in departmental proceedings and lack of evidence can lead to the vitiation of the departmental inquiry and the quashing of the penalty order.
Headnote:
Delay in Departmental Proceedings - BSNL CDA Rules - [DELAY, DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS, BSNL CDA RULES] - The court discussed the delay in initiating the departmental proceedings against the respondent, the lack of evidence to substantiate the charges, and the prejudice caused to the respondent due to the delay. The court highlighted the inordinate delay of almost nineteen years and the lack of justification for the delay, leading to the conclusion that the departmental inquiry was vitiated. The court also noted the promotions given to the respondent by the petitioners, indicating their conviction of the respondent's innocence.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Chief Accounts Officer, was charged with failing to issue bills and causing loss to the company. The departmental inquiry found him not guilty, but the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty. The Tribunal quashed the penalty order due to delay and lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in initiating the departmental proceedings caused grave prejudice to the respondent. It also noted the lack of evidence to substantiate the charges and the promotions given to the respondent, indicating the petitioners' conviction of his innocence.
Issues: Delay in departmental proceedings, lack of evidence, prejudice caused to the respondent, promotions given to the respondent despite charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in departmental proceedings and the lack of evidence to substantiate the charges led to the court's decision to quash the penalty order. The promotions given to the respondent also indicated the petitioners' conviction of his innocence.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the penalty order was quashed, with no orders as to costs.
REKHA PALLI, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 07.10.2016, passed by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in OA No.4352/2014, whereunder the Original Application filed by the respondent No.1, has been allowed by quashing the Disagreement Note dated 18.10.2012, the Penalty Order dated 23.04.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also the order dated 04.08.2013 passed by Appellate Authority, rejecting the respondent no.1’s appeal.
2. The brief facts as noted by the Tribunal are that the respondent no.1 herein (applicant before the Tribunal) was posted as a Chief Accounts Officer (IF) in the office of CGMT, UP (West) Circle, when he was served with a letter dated 22.07.2003 by Shri Dhara Singh, ADT (Vig.), GMTD, Ghaziabad, regarding the disconnection of telephone No.757541 in the year 1994. In the said letter, the respondent no. 1 was asked to explain as to why the aforementioned telephone no. was not disconnected despite heavy calls made from that number in early 1994, as well as why the bill for the said user was not raised on 01.06.1994, or at least on 01.08.1994 when the OB advice had been received by him on 19.04.1994. Upon receipt of the aforesaid letter, the respondent no.1 made a request in the TRA Unit for the original bills and a copy of the receipt of handing over OB advice to him. In response to the respondent no.1's request, the ADT (Vig.) replied saying that while the original bill was not available, a copy of the advice note of the telephone purportedly sent to the TRA Unit on 03.05.1994, was being provided to him. However, as per the respondent no.1, a copy of the forwarding letter dated 03.05.1994 (which date according to the respondent no.1 was 03.08.1994), was sent by the ADT (Vig) without any enclosures.
3. While the respondent no.1 was corresponding with the ADT (Vig.), with a request for the documents, as the information sought from him related to a very old incident, a charge-memo dated 30.03.2007 was issued to him by the Chief General Manager Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Uttar Pradesh Circle (Petitioner no.3 herein) containing the following charges :-
“Article-I
The said Shri Ram Pratap while posted and functioning as AO (TR) in Telecom District Ghaziabad during the year 94-95 failed to issue the bills in time of the telephone no.757541 in the name of Shri Sunil Kumar Garg, R-83 Rajkunj, Ghaziabad which resulted in heavy accumulation in outstanding amount against the telephone. By the negligence of the said Shri Ram Pratap, Company suffered a loss amounting to Rs.321234/-.
Thus by the above act, Shri Ram Pratap exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of Company Employee and thereby contravened the provisions of Rules 4(I)(b) & 4(I)(c) of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006. [Earlier Rules 3(I)(ii) & 3(I) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964].
Article-II
The said Shri Ram Pratap while posted and functioning in aforesaid capacity during the aforesaid period failed to get the telephone no.757541 in the name of Shri Sunil Kumar Garg, R-38 Rajkunj Ghaziabad disconnected in time under non payment. The telephone was disconnected after a long period from the scheduled date. It resulted a total loss to the Company by this outstanding dues on this connection amounting to Rs.321234/-.
Thus by the above act, Shri Ram Pratap exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of Company Employee and thereby contravened the provisions of Rules 4(I)(b) & 4(I)(c) of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006. [Earlier Rules 3(I)(ii) & 3(I) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964].
Article-III
The said Ram Pratap while posted and functioning as CAO in CGMT UP(W) circle during the period 2003-2004 did not cooperate the District Vigilance Cell in the investigation of the case mentioned above in article-I and article-II.
Thus by the above act, Shri Ram Pratap acted in a manner of unbecoming of Company Employee
