Prakash Chand vs India Tourism Development Corporation

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3164

(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.1143/2022
Reserved on :21.11.2023
Pronounced on :04.12.2023
Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Prakash Chand
House No.1057, Sector-21-C,
Faridabad (Haryana-121001.
Worked as Group ‘C’ Jr.Asstt. (Store),
GD.II T.No.4572, with the Ashoka Hotel (ITDC),
New Delhi. …Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri Bal Kishan)
Versus
1. Indian Tourism and Development
Corporation (ITDC), Scope Complex,
6th Floor, Core 8,7. Lodi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
(Through its Managing Director)
2. The Ashoka Hotel (ITDC),
50-B, Diplomatic Enclave,
Chankya Puri, New Delhi-110021.
(Through its General Manager). …Respondents
(By Advocate:Shri Ujjawal K.Jha)

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A):

By way of this OA filed under Section 19 of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s) :-

“(i) Call for the records and quash the impugned ‘charge memorandum’ vide the

(2)

Ref.No.PB-73(165)/4572 dated 24.06.2019 Annexure-A-1 (impugned), and also quash the ‘enquiry report vide the Ref.No.PB- 73(165)/4572 dated 20.07.2021 Annexure-A-2 (impugned), and ‘penalty order’ furnished vide the Ref.No.PB-73(165)/4572 dated 16.08.2021 Annexure-A-3 (impugned), ‘Appellate order’ dated 07.10.2021 Annexure-A-4 (impugned), and order all consequential benefits.

(ii) Order exemplary cost against respondents and in favour of the Applicant.

(iii) May also pass any further order(s), directions as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice.”

2. The case, in brief, as mentioned in the OA is that the applicant joined the service under respondent on 01.09.1990 after having gone through the due selection process devised by respondent, which included Police verification and checking of credentials.

3. Having served the respondent for nearly 29 years the applicant was served a 'charge sheet' [show cause notice] Ref.No. PB-73(165)/4572 dated 24.06.2019 (Impugned) for having furnished a false matriculation certificate at the time of recruitment, without any complaint from any quarter on this account.

4. The applicant was placed under suspension on 11.06.2019 vide the Ref.No.PB-73(165)/4572 dated

11.06.2019.

(3)

5. The applicant furnished a reply dated 06.08.2021 to charge sheet/Show Cause Notice.

6. It is contended in the OA that the respondent without even processing/referring to the submissions of the applicant advanced in his reply dated 06.08.2021 in terms of ratio laid down in W.P.(C).3676/2013 titled as Dr. Sahdev Singh Vs Union of India, mechanically issued the order of appointment of enquiry officer and presenting officer vide Ref.No. PB-73(165)/4572 dated 16.08.2019, leaving the applicant in the disadvantage of not knowing in what respect his reply was deficient.

7. On 10.02.2020, applicant made complaint against the, Inquiry Officer who was proceeding in a most closed manner, circumventing the entire procedure, leaving the applicant in a most helpless position to put an effective defence. It was specifically contended before the I.O by the applicant that there was no valid charge sheet containing integral part of charge memorandum with a "List of witnesses/and documents” proposed to be tried and relied upon during the course of departmental proceedings. But no heed was paid.

(4)

8. It is averred that the Daily order sheets' dated 21.10.2019 to 03.03.2021 also shows that the very course of inquiry was arbitrary wherein witnesses with no relevance to charge also participated. In fact even whatever was produced during course of inquiry remained annexures only and cannot be called ‘exhibits'.

9. Even the alleged fake matriculation was neither made part of 'charge memorandum' nor was exhibited by the Presenting Officer during the course of inquiry. Further, no opportunity was afforded to inspect the originals as provided under the law and despite persistent request from the applicant, the source of complaint was also not disclosed to the complainant.

10. Though there was no list of documents with the so called charge sheet/show cause notice dated 24.06.2019, nevertheless some documents were relied upon by the respondents but the authors of true documents were never called to prove them.

11. Moreover, no mandatory exploratory questions were asked by Inquiry officer on the possible grounds on which he could be held guilty as envisaged in law and upheld by

(5)

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ministry of Finance vs. S.B

Ramesh (1998) (3) SCC 227.

12. During the course of inquiry, no witness was summoned to establish the veracity of ‘educational certificate' issued by the concerned school or board where from the applicant passed the matriculation, especially in view of the fact that some

Click Here to Read the rest of this document