Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Nasimuddin Ansari – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 123 of 2018
Decided On : 03-08-2023
ARTICLE 226 - QUASHING OF MEMORANDUM, CHARGE SHEET, TENTATIVE DISAGREEMENT NOTE AND ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY - SUBJECT - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - ACT SECTION LIST - CCS (CCA) RULES, 1965 - SUMMARY - The Court quashed the Memorandum, Charge Sheet, Tentative Disagreement Note, and Order imposing a penalty on the petitioner, holding that the Disciplinary Authority's disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings was not based on any evidence and was arbitrary. The Court also found that the petitioner was singled out for punishment despite the collective responsibility of all the members of the Board of Officers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Border Road Engineering Service, was served with a Memorandum and Charge Sheet alleging irregularities in the recruitment process for Vehicle Mechanics. A Departmental Enquiry was initiated, and the Inquiry Officer found the charges not proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Inquiry Officer's findings and imposed a penalty of reduction in pay and increment. The petitioner challenged the penalty order in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Disciplinary Authority's disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings was not based on any evidence and was arbitrary. The Court also found that the petitioner was singled out for punishment despite the collective responsibility of all the members of the Board of Officers.
Issues: 1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority's disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings was based on evidence? 2. Whether the petitioner was singled out for punishment despite the collective responsibility of all the members of the Board of Officers?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Disciplinary Authority's disagreement with the Inquiry Officer's findings was not based on evidence. The Disciplinary Authority did not provide any reasons for its disagreement, and the evidence presented by the petitioner contradicted the Disciplinary Authority's assertions. 2. The petitioner was singled out for punishment despite the collective responsibility of all the members of the Board of Officers. The Disciplinary Authority did not take any action against the other members of the Board of Officers, even though they were equally responsible for the alleged irregularities.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the Memorandum, Charge Sheet, Tentative Disagreement Note, and Order imposing a penalty on the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of Memorandum dated 29.11.2012 along with the Charge Sheet issued by respondent no. 1; the Tentative Disagreement Note 11.07.2017 and the Order dated 26.10.2017 vide which the penalty of "Reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by three stages for a period of one year with further direction that the petitioner shall not earn increment of pay during the period, though reduction shall not have a future effect of postponing his increments" has been imposed upon the petitioner.
2. The petitioner upon his selection by UPSC, was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical) in Border Road Engineering Service on 20.06.1990. He was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 01.06.2005 w.e.f. 2003-2004. He was then appointed as a Commanding Officer in 1064 Field Workshop in Manipur under 25 BRTF Project Sewak from July, 2010 till September, 2013.
3. In the following year, Recruitment Board of vehicle mechanics at General Reserve Engineering Force Centre, Pune (hereinafter referred to as "GREF") was set up by the Chief Head Quarter, Dimapur. Lt. Col. S.S. Sisodia was appointed as the Presiding Officer. The petitioner was deployed as first member and S.K. Mendhapure was appointed as the second member of the Recruitment Board.
4. Some irregularities were alleged to have taken place during the recruitment process at Pune and Rishikesh by the Recruitment Board. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Border Road Development Board pursuant to its Order dated 27.06.2011 got a Preliminary Enquiry conducted by Shri Ghasi Ram, Chief Engineer who gave a Preliminary Enquiry Report dated 22.07.2011 noting certain irregularities and involvement of both Army and GREF officers.
5. Consequently, the Government decided to hold a Court of Inquiry vide two separate Orders dated 13.06.2012 and 21.09.2012 with Brig. K.C. Panchnathan as the Presiding Officer.
6. The petitioner was served with the Memorandum dated 29.11.2012 with Statement of Articles of Charge; first pertaining to the alleged irregularity in awarding 75 out of 75 marks to 33 candidates in the written test for recruitment to the post of Vehicle Mechanic, and secondly, irregularity in evaluation of 13 Answer Sheets. It was alleged in the Memorandum that when the candidates were evaluated again, they secured far less marks ranging between 27 to 30 marks and some of them even secured zero.
7. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 11.12.2012 refuting all the charges and allegations and requested for a copy of the Preliminary Inquiry.
8. As things stood thus, a Departmental Enquiry was initiated with Shri Subrata Aich Joint Director (Admn.) (Retd.) and Sh. M.B. Negi EE (E&M) appointed as Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer respectively by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, Boarder Road Development Board, vide Order dated 14.05.2013.
9. In the Departmental Enquiry, the State did not examine any witnesses. The petitioner, however, submitted his defence statement on 23.09.2013 refuting all the allegations, examined the prosecution witnesses namely Lt. Col. S.S. Sisodia, the Presiding officer of the Board, and S.K Mendhapure, the second member of the Board, as his defence witnesses.
10. Lt. Col. S.S. Sisodia deposed that the evaluation of the answer sheets was done correctly. In his cross-examination, he stated that out of 51 answer sheets, only 23 answer sheets were checked by the petitioner and the Charge framed under Article I was baseless. In respect of charge in Article II, he deposed that the Charged Officer had checked only 5 answer sheets out of 13 and all the 5 answer sheets had been evaluated correctly. He had also stated that the evaluation of answer sheets is the collective responsibility of Board of Officers (BOO) and recruiting Wing of GREF Centre as per the Directions/Guidelines
The court emphasized that it would not sit in appeal over the findings of the Departmental Authority and would not re-appreciate the evidence which has come before the Departmental Authority. The cou....
Disciplinary proceedings initiated post-CBI investigation adhered to due process, and courts cannot re-evaluate evidence unless findings are perverse; the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to de....
Disciplinary proceedings vitiate if an inquiry is conducted without serving proper notice to the delinquent, denying the right to cross-examine witnesses and failing to furnish a copy of the inquiry ....
The principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and the right to a fair and impartial hearing, must be adhered to in disciplinary proceedings against government employees.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
