Back
2006(2) JLJ 260
(SUPREME COURT)
S.B. Sinha and P.P. Naolekar, .JJ.
M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India and others
Civil Appeal No. 8267of 2004: against the order of M.P. High Court.
passed in Writ Petition No. 1889 of 2000;
Decided on 5.4.2006.
The appellant was working as a Junior Engineer at Jagadalpur in the year 1969-1970. He allegedly failed and/or neglected to maintain a register known as ACE-8 Register. After he had handed over charge to his successor Shri K.C. Sariya on or about 11.4.1975, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. [Para 1
Held: The charges which were framed related to only non-maintenance of ACE-8 Register and non-supervision of working of the line In absence of any charge that he had in fact misappropriated copper wire for his own benefit out of the disposal thereof, the question as regard purported misconduct by way of mystification of 4000 kg. of copper wire could not have been gone into. Furthermore, it has not been shown that ACE-8 register was required to be maintained in an appropriate form or in a particular manner, i.e., in bound form or in loose sheets.
So far as the second charge is concerned, it has not been shown as to what were the duties of the appellant in terms of the prescribed rules or otherwise. Furthermore, it has not been shown either by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority as to how and in what manner the maintenance of ACE-8 register by way of sheets which were found attached to the estimate tile were not appropriate so as to arrive at the culpability or otherwise of the appellant. The appellate authority in its order, stated that the appellant was not required to prepare the ACE-8 register twice. The appellant might have prepared another set of register presumably keeping in view the fact that he was asked to account for the same on the basis of the materials placed on records. [Paras 15 & 16
(2) Civil Servant -- departmental enquiry initiated after five years of handing over charge -- further seven years taken to complete the enquiry -- seven years taken by appellate Court -- no explanation -- appellate Court did not consider grievances specifically and elaborately made - procedure adopted is illegal. 1990 JLJ 319(SC) relied. on [Para 17
¼1½ flfoy lsod && ds fo#) foHkkxh; tk¡p && vopkj dk vkjksi fojfpr ugha && vopkj dh tk¡p ugha dh tk ldrh && jftLVj pkyw ugha j[kus vkSj drZO; ds vuuqikyu ds vkjksi && vLi"V gS tc jftLVj pkyw ugha j[kus vkSj drZO; ds j[kus dh vis{kk nf‘kZr ugha rFkk drZO; Hkh of.kZr ugha fd, x,A
vihykFkhZ o"kZ 1969&70 esa txnyiqj esa dfu"B ;a=h dh Hkk¡fr dk;Zjr FkkA og vfHkdfFkr :i ls ,lhbZ&8 dh Hkk¡fr [;kr jftLVj pkyw j[kus eas foQy jgk rFkk@vFkok mlus mis{kk dhA 11-4-1975 dks vFkok mlds vklikl tc mlus vius mÙkjkf/kdkjh Jh ds-lh- lfj;k dks izHkkj lkSaik] mlds fo#) vuq‘kklfud dk;Zokgh izkjaHk dh xbZ FkhA ¿ iSjk 1À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vkjksi tks fojfpr fd, x, Fks dsoy ,lhbZ&8 jftLVj pkyw ugha j[kus vkSj ykbu lapkyu ds vi;Zos{k.k ls lacaf/kr FksA ,sls vkjksi ds vHkko esa fd mlus okLro esa rkacs ds rkj dk fuiVkjk dj ds vius Qk;ns ds fy, mldk nqfoZfu;ksx fd;k] 4]000 fdyksxzke rkacs ds rkj ds nq:i;ksx }kjk vk‘kf;r vopkj ds iz‘u dh tk¡p ugha dh tk ldrh FkhA blds vfrfjDr] ;g nf‘kZr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd ,lhbZ&8 jftLVj fdl leqfpr iz:i esa ;k fdlh fof‘k‘V jhfr ls vFkkZr~ jftLVj :i esa ;k [kqys iUuksa essa pkyw j[kk tkuk visf{kr FkkA
tgk¡ rd nwljs vkjksi dk ljksdkj gS] ;g ugha crk;k x;k gS fd fofgr fu;eksa ds fuca/kuksa esa vFkok vihykFkhZ ds D;k drZO; FksA blds vfrfjDr] u rks vuq‘kklu izkf/kdkjh us vkSj u vihy izkf/kdkjh us gh ;g nf‘kZr fd;k gS fd izkDdyu Qkby esa laXyu ik, x, [kqys iUuksa }kjk ,lhbZ&8 jftLVj pkyw j[kuk D;ksa vkSj fdl jhfr ls leqfpr ugha Fks ftlls vihykFkhZ dh vkijkf/kdrk vFkok vU;Fkk dk fu"d"kZ fudkyk x;kA vihy izkf/kdkjh us vius vkns‘k esa dgk gS fd vihykFkhZ ls ,lhbZ&8 jftLVj nks ckj rS;kj fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha FkkA vihykFkhZ us jftLVj dk nwljk lsV vuqekUkr% ;g rF; /;ku esa j[k dj rS;kj fd;k gksxk fd vfHkys[kxr dh xbZ lkexzh ds vk/kkj ij mldk Li"Vhdj.k mlls ek¡xk x;k gSA ¿ iSjk 15 ,oa 16À
¼2½ flfoy lsod && izHkkj lkSais tkus ds ik¡p o"kZ i‘pkr~ tk¡p izkajHk dh xbZ && tk¡p iwjh dh tkus es vkSj lkr o"kZ yxs && vihy U;k;ky; }kjk lkr o"kZ fy, x, && dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k fopkj ugha fd;k && viukbZ xbZ izfØ;k voS/k gSA 1990 ts ,y ts 319 ¼mPpre U;k-½ voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 17À
Sinha, J. -- 1. The appellant was working as a Junior Engineer at Jagadalpur in the year] 969-1970. He allegedly failed and/or neglected to maintain a register known as ACE-X Register. After he had handed over charge to his successor Shri K.C. Sariya on or about 11.4.1975 a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him or the following charges:
"'(i) he had failed to maintain ACE-X Register showing acquisition and utilisation of 4.000 Kgs. of telegraph copper wire received from SDOT, Raipur, through Sub-Inspector Kashiram and Badul Quadir on 22.10.1969,30.10. 1959 and 2.12.1959 for utilisation on Geedam Baragarh truck line against estimate No. 2162 duly approved;
(ii) that he had failed to supervise the working of the line and utilisation of copper wire while the rules require the personnel supervision and accountability of the said wire; and
(iii) that he also showed misleading entries on the bills of transportation for transportation of the material."
2. The disciplinary proceedings remained pending for a period of seven years. A report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer only in the year 1982. In the disciplinary proceeding. the first two charges were held to have been proved against the appellant but the third charge was not proved. He was directed to be removed from service by the Disciplinary Authority by an order dated 21. 12.1983. An appeal preferred there against came to he dismissed by the appellate authority by an order dated 21.2.1991 i.e. after period of seven years holding:
''The ACE-8 sheets were still not available. in estimate tiles on 2160D(a) and 2161D(a) 69-70. If the statement of Shri Bijlani is taken to be correct that ACE-8 were prepared and kept in respective estimate tiles and were made over to Shri Sariya, then it should not have been necessary for Shri Bijlani to prepare ACE-8 again on 25.12.1973. He could have mentioned that numerical account of 150 lbs copper wire can he made from ACE-8 slip kept in the respective estimate tiles. The statement of Shri Bijlani that he prepared ACE-8 of 150 lbs copper wire on 25.12.1973 on the basis of limited records shown to him is also not acceptable. He could have demanded access to all the records for preparing numerical account of 150 lbs/mile copper wire. The EO has therefore rightly recorded wire 150 lbs/mile in ACE-8 (DOC.I) 150 mile copper wire was issued to east Jagdalpur on 22.10.1969 (2204 lbs), 30.10.1969 (2218-lbs) and 2.12.1989 (4398-lbs) by 20.10.1969 (2218-lbs/mile) copper wire hut he did not keep its numerical account in ACE-8 and could not prove its utilization properly."
3. The appellate authority went into question of maintenance of muster roll and the diaries maintained on day to day basis although that was not the subject matter of charge. On the said basis, it was held:
"Thus, the charge of failure to maintain ACE-8 and his failure to supervise the work of SIT and utilisation of copper wire is proved:'
4. Attention of the appellate authority was also drawn towards a number of lapses committed by the Enquiry Officer; but it was opined:
"Opportunity was available to Shri Bijlani to point out all these in the defence brief, but he failed to submit the defence brief even upto 15.5. 1983 although he himself requested the EO to permit him to tile defence brief by 15.2.1983. Shri Bijlani also failed to point out the lapses being made in the inquiry to the Disciplinary Authority."
5. The appellant tiled an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was marked as OA No. 200 of 1992. questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The said original application was dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 24.6.1999.
6. The Tribunal as regards the delay in conclusion of the proceedings held that charges were framed on the basis of the findings of the CBI (Anti-Corruption Bureau) and. thus, the delay stands explained.
7. The Tribunal furthermore considered
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
