Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1639
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, REKHA PALLI, JJ.
Union of India & Others – Petitioners
Versus
Laxman Prasad – Respondent
W.P.(C). No. 5433 of 2014
Decided On : 02-07-2019
For the Petitioner:Arun Bhardwaj, Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocates.
For the Respondent:G.S. Lobana, Basab Sengupta, Advocate.
The disagreement note issued by the disciplinary authority contained conclusive findings and was not tentative in nature, thereby rendering the opportunity granted to the respondent to make a representation an empty formality. The court held that the disagreement note and all other consequential orders were unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
Headnote:
disciplinary authority - chargesheet - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - The court found that the disagreement note issued by the disciplinary authority contained conclusive findings and was not tentative in nature, thereby rendering the opportunity granted to the respondent to make a representation an empty formality. The court held that the disagreement note and all other consequential orders were unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority for fresh examination of the enquiry report and to proceed from that stage. The court also directed the disciplinary authority to take note of the present decision and the decision of the Supreme Court in Yoginath (supra) if it proposed to disagree with the report of the Enquiry Officer, and to pass the final order in accordance with the law by providing the respondent an adequate opportunity to make his representation.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was served with a chargesheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging his involvement in forgery and fraud. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and issued a disagreement note to the respondent, granting him an opportunity to submit his representation within fifteen days. The respondent submitted his representation reiterating his case, but the disciplinary authority did not accept the respondent’s defence and held the charges against him as proved, awarding him the penalty of reduction to lower stage of pay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disagreement note issued by the disciplinary authority contained conclusive findings and was not tentative in nature, thereby rendering the opportunity granted to the respondent to make a representation an empty formality. The court held that the disagreement note and all other consequential orders were unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority for fresh examination of the enquiry report and to proceed from that stage. The court also directed the disciplinary authority to take note of the present decision and the decision of the Supreme Court in Yoginath (supra) if it proposed to disagree with the report of the Enquiry Officer, and to pass the final order in accordance with the law by providing the respondent an adequate opportunity to make his representation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the disagreement note issued by the disciplinary authority, the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and the subsequent penalty awarded to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disagreement note and all other consequential orders were unsustainable and liable to be quashed as they contained conclusive findings and did not provide the respondent with a fair opportunity to make his representation. The court remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for fresh examination of the enquiry report and directed the disciplinary authority to pass the final order in accordance with the law by providing the respondent an adequate opportunity to make his representation.
Final Decision: The court partially allowed the writ petition, quashed the disagreement note and all other consequential orders, and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for fresh examination of the enquiry report and to proceed from that stage. The court directed the disciplinary authority to take note of the present decision and the decision of the Supreme Court in Yoginath (supra) if it proposed to disagree with the report of the Enquiry Officer, and to pass the final order in accordance with the law by providing the respondent an adequate opportunity to make his representation.
JUDGMENT :
Rekha Palli, J.
1. The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the Union of India, assails the order dated 28.04.2010 passed by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in OA No.2561/2009. The petitioner also assails the order dated 10.03.2014 passed in RA No.80/2013 dismissing the petitioner’s application seeking review of the order dated 28.04.2010.
2. The aforesaid original application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’) had been preferred by the respondent impugning the penalty of reduction to lower stage of pay by eleven stages for eight years with cumulative effect, awarded to him by the disciplinary authority. In his OA, the respondent had also impugned the appellate authority’s order dated 22.06.2009 modifying the penalty of reduction in pay, as awarded to him by the disciplinary authority, to that of recovery of Rs.5,80,000/- from his pay in hundred equal monthly instalments.
3. On 17.08.2005, the respondent, while working as a correspondence clerk at the Lalitpur Head Post Office, was served with a chargesheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 with the following charge:-
“That the said Shri Laxman Prasad while working as correspondence clerk at Lalitpur HO during the period from 08/01/02 to 06/02/02 got introduced some forgers Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari and Shri Sanjay Pathak with Shri Abhay Kumar Jain, SAS Agent no.85 Lalitpur who introduced the forgers on SB-3 in opening of SB account no. 527944 and 527946 respectively on 08/1/02 for Rs.500/- each. The said Shri Laxman Prasad also received some forged/manipulated bank drafts directly from the depositors/forgers for clearance and depositing its amount into respective SB a/cs while the bank drafts should be received through SB counter assistant. The said Shri Laxman Prasad also failed to check the overwriting, erasures or corrections on the bank drafts. Yet he accelerated the clearance/collection of bank drafts through State Bank of India Lalitpur Branch with the conspiracy of forgers/depositors. With the conspiracy of forgers/depositors the said Sri Laxman Prasad cheated the department as well as the SBI and succeeded to get cleared and deposited the bank drafts amounting to Rs.781000/- and the department suffered the net loss amounting to Rs.756000/-.
By acting in the above manner the said Shri Laxam Prasad is alleged to have failed to maintain his absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of Govt. servant and thereby violated the provision of following departmental Rules;
(1) Rule 6(a), 6(a)(2) of PO SB Manual Volume-1 read with rules of appendix 1 to the said Manual.
(2) Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rule-1964.”
4. On 26.08.2005, the respondent submitted his reply denying the charges levelled against him in the aforesaid chargesheet. Shortly thereafter, vide a memorandum dated 31.10.2005, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent were dropped. The said memorandum, however, clearly stated that the proceedings were being dropped without prejudice to any further action which may be taken against the respondent by issuing a fresh chargesheet. On 02.08.2006, a fresh chargesheet, on the same charges, was issued and upon the respondent denying the charges, a departmental inquiry was held against him wherein he was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer, in his report dated 07.12.2007, came to the conclusion that there was nothing to show the implication of the respondent in the charges levelled against him, and his findings read as under:-
“1. Presenting officer has not given any documents in this case by which the charges are supposed to be proved. Simply, he has taken the plea that statements presented as documents were got confirmed by the concerned witnesses. He has made the same the basis on which charges are proved. I do not agree to it.
II. As defence has state
