IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings cannot be quashed solely on the ground of delay; the severity of allegations must also be considered.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAY BISHNOI, C.J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 22.04.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as ‘CAT’) Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 216/2020 whereby the CAT allowed the application filed on behalf of the sole respondent herein and set aside the Memorandum of Charges dated 12.02.2018 issued by the petitioners in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent.

2. The brief facts, sans the details, are that the sole respondent was appointed on 05.11.2005 in the Military Engineer Services and initially he was posted as Assistant Director, Group ‘A’ Civilian Officer in the office of the Chief Engineer, Lucknow Zone under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. After completion of his probation period on 04.11.2007, his service was confirmed w.e.f. 05.11.2007. He worked as AGE B/R (Project) under GE Dehu Road during the period from 23.05.2006 to 31.12.2009. The respondent was firstly promoted as Executive Engineer on 22.10.2010 and he was given second promotion w.e.f. 01.12.2015 as Executive Engineer (Non-Functional Selection Grade).

However, while he was functioning as AGE B/R (Project) under GE Dehu Road, certain discrepancies were found in the execution of his work which involved construction of Explosive Storage House. As per the department, the said discrepancies were came into the knowledge of it in the year 2011 and the first Staff Court of Inquiry was conducted to fix the responsibility of the officers involved in the construction of the Explosive Storage House. Thereafter, the second and third Staff Court of Inquiry was conducted and ultimately the respondent was served with the memorandum of charges on 12.02.2018, which is reproduced hereunder:

Article-I

“That MES-439169 Shri V.K. Gupta, EE, while functioning as AGE B/R (Project) under GE Dehu Road during the period from 23.05.2006 to 31.12.2009 was responsible for execution for Job No. S/2502. He had allowed the contractor to execute the walls of 16xESHs with cavity instead of 60 cm thick solid walls and thus he had shown gross negligence and poor monitoring of construction of walls under CA No. CEPZ/MUM/53 of 2004-05.

Article-II

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said MES439169 Shri V.K. Gupta, EE, had not done adequate supervision and physical monitoring of works which led to poor quality and incorrect construction of loading platforms, hard standing, fire breaks and ramps (Job No. S/2431 and S/2502).

Article-III

That during the aforesaid period the said MES439169 Shri V.K. Gupta, EE, while functioning as AGR B/R (Project) was responsible for poor layout of area drainage (Job No. S/2431 & S/2502).

Article-IV

That during the aforesaid period the said MES439169 Shri V.K. Gupta, EE, while functioning as aGE B/R (Project) was responsible for poor maintenance of site documents under Job No. S/2431 & S/2502.

Article-V

That during the aforesaid period the said MES439169 Shri V.K. Gupta, EE, while functioning as AGE B/R (Project) failed to bring to the notice of higher MES authorities, various user requirements omitted during planning stage like inadequate qtys of road network under Job No. S/2431 & S/2502, omission of loading platform under Job No. S/2431, wrong specification of ‘Z’ types ventilators under Job No. 2431 and Job No. S/2502 and omission of fire breaks under Job No. S/2431.”

3. As per the petitioners, the respondent did not respond to the said charges within the prescribed time limit. However, he submitted a representation against the said Memorandum of Charges. When the said representation was not decided, the respondent preferred O.A. No. 350/284/2019 before the CAT, Kolkata Bench. The said original application was disposed of by the CAT, Kolkata Bench on 05.03.2019 and, after that, disciplinary proceedings were resumed against the respondent.

At that stage, the respondent again preferred an original application