Back
2007 Supreme(Raj) 1259
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble R.M. LODHA, J. Honble DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J.
Poonam Arora (Mrs.) - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4379 of 2001
Decided On : September 27, 2007
Ashwani Jaiman on behalf of R.N. Mathur, for Petitioner; Shailesh Prakash Sharma, for Respondents No. 1 to 3;
Headnote:(a) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, Sec. 21 – Limitation for making application u/S. 19 – Held – Where the representation is made and period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, the application shall be made within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.(Para 19)
¼d½ dsUnzh; izkklfud vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1985] /kkjk 21 & /kkjk 19 ds rgr vkosnu isk djus dh ifjlhek & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & tgka vkosnu fd;k tkrk gS vkSj mlds ckn fcuk dksbZ vfUre vknsk ikfjr fd;s N% ekg dh vof/k xqtj tkrh gS rks Ng ekg dh mDr vof/k ds volku dh frfFk ls ,d o"kZ ds Hkhrj vkosnu djuk gksxkA ¼in la[;k 19½
(b) Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, Rule 11, 25, 25-A – Institution of successive judicial proceedings for the same allegations – Permissibility – Held – Once the departmental enquiry is over and a public servant has been exonerated or punished, no second departmental enquiry on the same facts can be ordered unless there is specific provision for reviewing such order in the service rules or any law – Issuance of second charge-sheet by disciplinary authority is neither covered by rule 25 nor 25-A – Quashed and set aside.(Paras 19 to 25) Writ petition allowed.
¼[k½ jsYos deZpkjh ¼vuqkklu ,oa vihy½ fu;e] 1968] fu;e 11] 25] 25-d mlh vfHkdFku gsrq mRrjksRrj U;kf;d dk;Zokgh lafLFkr djuk & vuqKs;rk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ,d ckj tc foHkkxh; tkap iw.kZ gks tkrh gS vkSj yksd lsod dks ekQ dj fn;k tkrk gS ;k nf.Mr dj fn;k tkrk gS rks mUgha rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij f}rh; foHkkxh; tkap [kksyus ds vknsk ugha fn;s tk ldrs tc rd fd lsok fu;eksa ;k fdlh fof/k esa ,sls vknsk dk iqu% foZyksdu djus gsrq fofufnZ"V izko/kku u gks & vuqkklukRed izkf/kdkjh }kjk nqckjk vkjksi i= tkjh djuk u rks /kkjk 25 ls ,oa u gh /kkjk 25-d ls vko`r gksrk gS & vknsk vfHk[kf.Mr ,oa vikLr fd;kA ¼in la[;k 19 ls 25½ ;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA
(2). Smt. Poonam Arora-petitioner herein (for short, ``the delinquent) was appointed on the post of Senior Clerk on 22nd May, 1989. She was posted in the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Kota. She was thereafter promoted to the post of Head Clerk on 18th March, 1994.
(3). She was served with a memorandum of charge for imposing minor penalty under Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short, ``the Rules of 1968) on 28th November, 1995. The allegation against her was that she had submitted a proposal for assessment of 18 posts of Chief Clerk in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660 (RP) of Establishment Branch to the Additional Divisional Railway Manager through the Assistant Personnel Officer-II taking into consideration anticipated vacancies- (a) due to retirement; and (b) due to promotion in higher grade; and taking the approval of the Additional Divisional Railway Manager without routing the file through the concerned authorities (Senior D.P.O.), while the applications dated 1st March, 1995 and 6th March, 1995 submitted by R.S. Gupta and D.M. Chawrekar respectively for seeking voluntary retirement were not submitted by her to the competent authority even up to the date of written test that was held on 16th April, 1995. It was alleged that taking into account the two vacancies was not correct and subsequently both the employees withdrew their applicants for voluntary retirement also. Due to wrong assessment of vacancies, the whole proceeding of selection had to be cancelled. It was, thus, alleged that the lapses showed her careless work and negligence of duties.
(4). The delinquent was called upon to submit her explanation/representation within ten days of receipt of the memorandum of charge-sheet.
(5). The delinquent submitted reply to the afore-stated charge- sheet. The competent authority held the delinquent guilty of carelessness and negligent in duty; charge was, thus, held proved and by the order dated 15th May, 1996, the disciplinary authority punished her of withholding of one set Privilege Ticket Order (P.T.O.) in the current year or whenever due to her. Pertinently, in his order dated 15th May, 1996, the disciplinary authority observed that the lapses occurred due to inexperience of the delinquent.
(6). On 25th September, 1998, the delinquent was served with second charge-sheet. This charge-sheet was for the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1968 i.e. for the major penalty. Article of charges in the second charge-sheet dated 25th September, 1998 reads thus:
"Smt. Poonam Arora, Head Clerk in Kota Division, while working as such during the year 1995 committed gross misconduct in as much as that:-
(i) Smt. Poonam Arora, Head Clerk in collusion with APO(II)/Kota Sh. M.K. Chauhan and Shri D.M. Chavrekar, OS (Estt.) prepared misleading assessment of vacancies of draw herself an undue advantage during the selection of Chief Clerk, Grade Rs. 1600-2660 (RP), notification for which was issued on 20.3.95.
(ii) Smt. Poonam Arora also intentionally increased anticipated vacancy by one more number of taking into account the vacancies that would have arisen due to voluntary retirement application dated 1.3.95 submitted by Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta even though the same was not put up to the accepting authority till date of assessment of vacancies for the selection, i.e. 15.3.95.
By the above act Smt. Poonam Arora, failed to Exhibited absolute integrity, maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a railway servant thereby violating rule 3.1(i), (ii) & (iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966.
(7). The statement of imputations in support of the afore-noticed article of charges set out in the second charge-sheet read thus:
"Smt. Poonam Arora, while working as Head Clerk/Kota in the y
