Disciplinary authority cannot impose penalty relying on documents outside inquiry record or disagreement note without affording cross-examination opportunity, violating natural justice; inaudible CCTV evidence inadmissible in corruption proceedings.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-

The applicant has filed present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act., 1985, seeking the following relief(s) under para 8 of the OA:-

“(a) Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 18.12.2020 (Annexure A/1) and dated 23.10.2019 (Annexure A/2) alongwith disagreement note (Annexure A/3).

(b) Direct the respondents to issue reinstatement order reinstating the applicant in service w.e.f. 23.10.2019 i.e. the date of dismissal, deeming the applicant in service and treat the entire suspension period as spent on duty for all purposes and release all consequential pay/salary/emoluments till the date of applicant’s superannuation i.e. 30.09.2020.

(c) Further direct the respondents to release all retiral benefits of the applicant accordingly and release the same forthwith along with interest @ 12% p.a.

(d) Award costs of the proceedings in favour of the applicant.

(e) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Driver with the respondents– Delhi Fire Service on 01.08.1983 by way of direct recruitment, subsequently as Sub-Officer on 11.08.2005, and, thereafter promoted as Station Officer on 24.05.2011. The applicant was placed under suspension on 13.05.2016 with the following charges:-

“Article-1

That the said Sh. Surender Singh Yadav, Station Officer, Delhi Fire Service, while functioning as Station Officer, Fire Station, Sector-16, Rohini Delhi during the year 2014 committed gross misconduct in as much as by misusing his official position, he demanded and obtained illegal gratification from the owner of a Nursing Home for giving favourable report in respect of a fire incident.

By the above acts of omission & commission, the aforesaid Sh. Surender Singh Yadav, Station Officer exhibited lack of absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article - II

That the said Sh. Surender Singh Yadav, Station Officer during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid post, committed gross misconduct in as much as by demanding and accepting illegal gratification, which was telecast on a news channel, he caused adverse publicity of Delhi Fire Service in the eyes of public at large.

By the above acts of omission & commission, the aforesaid Sh. Surender Singh Yadav Officer exhibited lack of absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964”

3. A copy of charge sheet alongwith statement of Articles of charge, statement of imputation of misconduct, list of documents and list of witnesses was given to the applicant. Applicant submitted his reply to the memo of charge on 14.10.2016. Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on 24.11.2016. The applicant states that in the course of inquiry, the prosecution did not produce complainant Shri Manish Gupta, Shri K.K. Saxena (who already expired on 13.12.2017) and for the remaining four witnesses produced and examined during the course of inquiry, the applicant states that on 07.02.2019, he was served an impugned disagreement note along with Inquiry Report dated 10.08.2018. The Inquiry Report reveals that after detailed analysis of evidence and upon due application of mi