Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, AMIT RAWAL, JJ.
Union of India - Petitioner
Versus
Devinder Pal Singh & another - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No.16503 of 2014
Decided On : 25-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the time frame for completing enquiry proceedings and the validity of a review application seeking an extension. The court emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach in considering such matters.
Headnote:
Enquiry Proceedings - Central Administrative Tribunal - CAT - [Railway Board Act, Section 4(1); Central Administrative Tribunal Act, Section 19] - The court discussed the time frame prescribed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the completion of enquiry proceedings. The key legal provisions of the Railway Board Act, Section 4(1) and the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, Section 19 were interpreted to determine the commencement of the time frame and the validity of the review application. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the time frame and the requirement for granting an extension for completing the enquiry proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the completion of enquiry proceedings against a railway employee within the time frame prescribed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The employee was charge-sheeted for illegal activities, and the Tribunal had granted one final opportunity to conclude the proceedings within a specified time frame.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the time frame for completing the enquiry proceedings should commence from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, and the review application seeking an extension was valid. The court also observed that the Tribunal should have considered the issue in a pragmatic manner.
Issues: The key issues included the commencement of the time frame for completing the enquiry proceedings, the validity of the review application seeking an extension, and the imposition of a major penalty on the employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court modified the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding the commencement of the time frame and the rejection of the review application. It also granted the applicant liberty to challenge the order imposing a major penalty within a specified time frame.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was modified. The applicant was given liberty to challenge the order imposing a major penalty within a specified time frame.
AMIT RAWAL, J.
1. In pursuance to the order dated 21.8.2017, Mr. Kulwant Singh, Divisional Engineer, Ferozepur was present in Court alongwith record and same was perused.
2. The short point involved in the present writ petition is whether enquiry proceedings initiated against respondent No.1 would be deemed to be quashed for not completing the same within the time frame prescribed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short “CAT”) while disposing of O.A.No.1266-PB of 2012 vide order dated 2.5.2013 with a caveat that in case of non-conclusion of the enquiry, the charge-sheet served upon respondent No.1 would automatically be quashed.
3. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in October, 1971, respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Permanent Inspector at Ferozepur Division, Northern Railway. In the year 2008, i.e., on 9.4.2008, while working as Senior Section Engineer (P-Way), i.e., SSE/P-WAY/FZR at Ferozepur, applicant committed serious illegalities. Accordingly, he was charge-sheeted by serving the following charges:-
“(a) Splitting the requirements of “L-Xing Speed Breaker Marker/Road Pavement Marker” in 19 indents keeping value of each indent below Rs.2 lacs deliberately so that the tenders are dealt at a particular level and to avoid issue of advertised tender.
(b) The 19 indents so prepared as also the bills submitted by the firm for payment had hand written on top “Jai Mata Di” by one and the same person as opined by GQED establishes his collusion with the firm at indenting stage....”
4. Applicant-respondent No.1 challenged the aforementioned charge-sheet before the Central Administrative Tribunal vide O.A.No.1266 (PB) of 2012 and vide order dated 2.5.2013, the same was disposed of by the CAT granting one final opportunity to the Competent Authority to conclude the departmental proceedings within one month from 2.5.2013 and in case of non-conclusion, the proceedings shall stand quashed. According to the learned counsel, in fact, the aforementioned direction ought to have been one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The aforementioned order was sought to be reviewed by Review Application No.59/2013 seeking three months' time to conclude the departmental proceedings, but vide order dated 8.1.2014 (Annexure P-6), the same was dismissed, which is also under challenge.
5. It was next contended that the CAT did not consider the detailed facts explained in the application seeking review for not completing the enquiry within the stipulated time. The copy of the order dated 2.5.2013 was received on 17.6.2013 and the information required by Railway Board, i.e., original D&AR case file of D.P. Singh was sent to the Railway Board on 29.5.2013. There were summer vacations and the application for review was filed on 19.7.2013. The gist of the detail, i.e., steps taken after culmination of enquiry given in the written statement, was also part and parcel of the application, but the same was not adhered to. Applicant-respondent No.1 has been imposed a penalty of 20% cut in the monthly pension for a period of three years and the order has been communicated. Respondent No.1 has a separate cause of action to challenge the same.
6. Per contra, Ms. Padamkant Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of Para 4 of the application seeking review of the order as no explanation had been furnished in not taking any effective steps from 17.6.2013 till opening of the CAT after summer vacations, which opened in the first week of July, 2013. Even the certified copy of the order was prepared by the Registry on 29.5.2013. Nothing prevented the department to move an application seeking extension of time and, thus, departmental proceedings initiated in pursuance to the service of the charge-sheet, the enquiry report and imposition of penalty deemed to be quashed. The department had been delaying the culmination of t
