Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14431
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
SHRI LOK RANJAN, A, MS. RANJANA SHAHI, J
JAI GOPAL – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 617/2016 & ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 627/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri C.B. Sharma
For the Respondents: Shri Abhishek Sharma, Shri N.C. Goyal
Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not absolve individuals from liability under disciplinary actions, which operate under different standards of proof.
Headnote:(A) Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966 - Rule 26 and Rule 3.1(iii) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Departmental and Criminal Proceedings - Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not alter the outcome of disciplinary actions that followed different standards of proof. (Paras 14 - 15)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Grounds for punishment, including unauthorized handover of documents and failure to maintain dispatch records, were upheld. The penalties imposed were considered valid and not disproportionate. (Paras 18 - 19)
Facts of the case:
The Applicants challenged their compulsory retirement without pension following disciplinary proceedings that were based on allegations regarding improper handling of transfer cases. The acquittal in a related criminal trial was cited as grounds for reconsideration of the disciplinary punishment.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found no grounds for interference with the disciplinary action taken against the Applicants, reaffirming the importance of maintaining administrative integrity, particularly in cases of misconduct.
Issues: Whether the acquittal in criminal proceedings could lead to a reversal of disciplinary consequences that were already finalized.
Ratio Decidendi: The acquittal from criminal charges does not prevent disciplinary actions since they are based on distinct standards of proof, and the findings in one do not impact the liabilities in the other. Disciplinary actions can proceed independently from criminal proceedings.
Result: The O.A. was disallowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaints filed for disciplinary review. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. official correspondence procedures violated. (Para 5 , 13) |
| 3. equity found in departmental versus criminal inquiry. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. acquittal does not negate departmental liability. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. tribunal disallowed the appeal. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER
Per : Hon’ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
The matters vide the present O.A. No. 627/2016 filed by Shri Jai Gopal and the O.A. No.617/2016 filed by Shri Ashok Kumar Verma are stated to be similar and arising from same/similar set of actions and decisions ; as well as had been filed to seek the same/similar reliefs. Hence, these O.A.s have been taken together. For the sake of convenience, the facts and other details are taken from the O.A. No.627/2016 hereafter.
2. The Applicant had filed the present Original Application upon being aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 03.11.2015 of the Respondents, vide which the Applicant’s representation dated 29.01.2015 had been responded to – inter alia communicating that the punishment imposed previously in the disciplinary proceedings against him stood unchanged even after the Judgment dated 09.11.2014 of the Hon’ble CBI Court in the related criminal proceedings – as the charges in those were different and the Applicant was not exonerated/acquitted in the criminal case on merit ; and also upon being aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 13.05.2016 of the Respondents, vide which his letter dated 03.12.2015 was responded to – inter alia conveying that the matter stood decided since his Appeal Petition had already been decided by the competent authority and speaking orders were also issued previously in pursuance of Hon’ble Court’s decision.
3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the matrix of facts relevant in the present case had emerged as follows briefly. The Applicant had initially been appointed as Clerk on 16.05.1968 and thereafter had been promoted from time to time as Senior Clerk, Head Clerk and eventually as Office Superintendent Grade-II in the year 1998. He was working as Chief Clerk in the office of Chief Workshop Manager (CWM), Ajmer (Respondent No.2), when in 1999, the matter of transfer of two employees – namely one Rajesh Singh and another Gajendra Singh, from Phulera to Ajmer Workshop had come up. Their applications had been dealt with by the concerned section from time to time and after consideration by the competent authority, the said employees were allowed posting at Ajmer vide letter dated 07.05.1999 of the then SPO (W). Later, the letters relating to transfer of these officials were found to be forged. Consequently, the matter was reported to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vide the FIR dated 08.06.2000, which had taken up the criminal investigation duly. Further, the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (Loco) had also initiated disciplinary proceedings, inter alia against the Applicant vide the charge-sheet Memo dated 30.03.2002 for major penalty. The said charge-sheet had included two charges, briefly – that the Applicant, after dealing with the transfer cases of the said Rajesh Singh and Gajendra Singh had unauthorizedly handed over the letter No.EW1140/1/5/Part-6 dated 04.05.99 addressed to DRM (Establishment), Jaipur, to one Ghanshyam Malkar ; and that Letter No. EW.1140/1/5/Part-6 dated 07.06.1999 dealt with by the Applicant and addressed to DRM(E), Jaipur was not entered in the Despatch Section records. Thus, it had been charged that the Applicant had unauthorizedly handed over an official correspondence to private individuals and had failed to act as per procedure for the dispatch of official correspondence from one unit to another – thereby he had violated Rule-26 and Rule-3.1(iii) of the Railway Service Conduct Rule 1966 (the RSC Rules,1966).
4. The disciplinary proceedings by the administrative / competent authorities and the criminal proceedings by the CBI in the matter, had both been progressed. In due
