Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 1080
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G. S. Sandhawalia, Vikas Suri, JJ.
Dr. Swaranjit Singh - Appellant
Versus
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 8839 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 18-02-2022
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the Appellant; Mr. I.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of proportionality in disciplinary matters and the requirement for a conscious and categorical admission of guilt before penal action can be based on it.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Employment - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 11 - The court discussed the misconduct of the petitioner in relation to the retraction of scientific papers published by Dr. Fazlurrahman Khan, the first author, and the petitioner's role as a co-author and supervisor. The court highlighted the disproportionate penalty imposed on the petitioner and the lack of a finding that the misconduct was wilful in character. The court also emphasized the application of the doctrine of proportionality in disciplinary matters and the need for a conscious and categorical admission of guilt before penal action can be based on it. The court set aside the penalty and modified it to 'compulsory retirement' as provided in Rule 11 of the CCS Rules, 1965.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a scientist, was charged with misconduct related to the retraction of scientific papers published by a colleague. The petitioner's 30-year service record and the treatment of similar cases within the institute were raised as points of contention. The court found that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate and lacked a finding of wilful misconduct.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate to the misconduct imputed and lacked a specific finding that the misconduct was wilful in character. The court also highlighted the gross variance in the treatment of similar cases within the institute, emphasizing the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues raised in the case included the disproportionate penalty imposed on the petitioner, the lack of a finding of wilful misconduct, and the gross variance in the treatment of similar cases within the institute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the doctrine of proportionality in disciplinary matters and emphasized the need for a conscious and categorical admission of guilt before penal action can be based on it. The court also highlighted the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India due to the gross variance in the treatment of similar cases within the institute.
Final Decision: The court set aside the penalty imposed on the petitioner and modified it to 'compulsory retirement' as provided in Rule 11 of the CCS Rules, 1965.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Suri, J. - The present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred to challenge the judgment dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, dismissing the Original Application (OA No.060/377/ 2017), whereby the termination order dated 04.07.2016 (Annexure A-14) of the petitioner and the appellate order dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure A-18) thereagainst were assailed, which have also been challenged herein.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the writ petitioner on 01.01.1987 joined the office of respondent No.4-Institute, as Scientist 'B'. Thereafter, on 01.01.1992, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Scientist 'C'. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Scientist 'E-1' and then as Scientist 'E-2' w.e.f. 01.01.1997 and 21.01.2002, respectively. On 21.01.2008, the petitioner was further promoted as Scientist 'F' and was placed as Senior Principal Scientist with respondent No.4-Institute.
3. That on 10.11.2013, an email was received from one Dr. Jim Spain of the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, addressed to respondent No.4 i.e. Director, Institute of Microbial Technology, Chandigarh, wherein the attention was drawn to an incident of potential academic misconduct related to several papers published recently by Dr. Fazlurrahman Khan and his colleagues at IMTECH. The said email had highlighted and raised the concern to investigate four instances/papers published recently by Dr. Fazlurrahman Khan as the first author. It was stated in the said email that on review of publication of Dr. F. Khan, several papers were based on ideas taken from the students of Dr. Jim Spain of Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA and/or from the research performed by Dr. F. Khan while working for Georgia Tech. The said email also gave instances of impossible results given in different papers/publications, strongly suggesting that the said results cannot be supported with actual data. The concern was raised that publication of the papers by Dr. F. Khan constitutes misconduct and misappropriation of intellectual property of the Georgia Institute of Technology and the results in the said papers may not be supported by verified data. In all the instances highlighted in the said email, Dr. F. Khan was the first author with other co- authors in various combinations. After the fact finding committee's report, 6 papers published were being looked into. A total of 8 authors combined in smaller groups published 6 papers, Dr. F. Khan being the first author in all of them.
4. On receipt of the said email, the petitioner took steps regarding the retraction of the published papers referred to in the email dated 10.11.2013, which action was approved by the Competent Authority and conveyed vide communication dated 29.01.2014 (Annexure A-9). Pursuant to the said request to the Publishing Houses, admittedly, the scientific papers were retracted that had been published by March, 2014.
5. On 10.11.2014, a charge-sheet was served upon the writ petitioner, wherein he was alleged with misconduct and accused of using fake and fabricated data while publishing the afore-mentioned scientific papers. Reply to the charge-sheet dated 20.11.2014 was filed by the petitioner, wherein a stand was taken that the writ petitioner was only supervising the research programme and was not the lead author and that the raw data was wrongly supplied by Dr. F. Khan. It was also highlighted that the papers that were published, wherein Dr. F. Khan was the first author, had in fact been retracted by the Publishing Houses who had been immediately intimated for retraction as soon as the email was received from Dr. Jim Spain. Much stress in the reply was laid to the fact that in the papers complained of, there were other co-authors as well against whom no action was taken and he was being made a scapegoat by the department. The said reply was rejected and inqu
