'3' L ‘PI’

1 QA_N_Q,308/2017 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI, CAMP‘KT NAGPUR.

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.3U8[2017 Date this ..N..€.‘fi.l'f§§lg.the .1?-Qhday ofForte, 2024. CORAM: justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (I)

Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)

Suresh 5/0 Bapurao Patre, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Retd.

R/at Plt No.33, Kolte Layout, Near Collector Colony, (Prashant Nagar), Godhani Railway, Nagpur 441 111. Applicant (ByAdvocate Mrs. Rashi Deshpande)

VERSUS

1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services), Ieevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110 001.

2. The Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, B Block, 2”‘ Floor, CGO Complex, Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440 006.

1 3. Shri Chil

Pronounced on: 1 9}“ gum, 7,0214.

-_-

2 __OA No.3_08/20]7 ORDER Per: |ustic_e_: l\/l.G_._Se\_»gli_l;ar, Member 1|)

The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, B Block, 2*“ Floor, CGO Complex, Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440 006. Respondents (By Advocate Shri R.A. Gupte ) Reserved on :17’I1 Ianuary, 2024.

By this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1984, the applicant is seeking the relief of quashing the Charge Memorandum dated

17*“ April, 2017.

2. The facts in nutshell are that:

2.1 The applicant was appointed as Iunior Clerk in District Court. He was promoted as Steno/Clerk in lower grade in Iune 1991. The applicant was sent on deputation in Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) on the post of Private Secretary on 1st August 2001. He was absorbed in DRT, Nagpur on 3rd December, 2002. He retired on superannuation on 30th April, 2024. The applicant has an unblemished record. He worked to the satisfaction of his superiors. The applicant was served with Office Memorandum (show cause notice) dated 24.3‘ March, 2017 by which allegations were made against him as under:-

3 OA No.308/20]7 i) Firstly, he was directed to take printout of the orders and to give it to the Presiding Officer well in advance for enabling the PO to make corrections and to pronounce the orders on the dates given for that purpose. The applicant gave orders in OA No. 99/2016 in the last minute on 23rd March, 2017 as a result of which the said order could not be corrected on 23rd March 2017 and the Presenting Officer was forced to post case to some other date.

ii) Secondly, he was directed to improve the quality of typing and not to commit spelling mistakes. But in the interim order dated 20th March, 2017, he typed "interim say” instead of "interim stay”. This true copy was also issued to the applicant and the applicant showed it to the Bank and the Bank did not accept that order as the word "interim stay” was not mentioned. With the result, that the party and his advocate was forced to file one amendment application on 23"‘ March, 2017 on which the PO was forced to pass order to correct the mistake in the order dated 20th March, 2017 typed by the applicant.

4 OA_No._308420]7 iii) Thirdly, it is observed that the applicant had been coming late to the office after prescribed time and in the surprise check on 22”‘ March, 2017, the applicant had attended office late though the PO started the Court work in the Court hall by utilizing the services of Mr. D.T. Giridhar, Steno ‘C’. At about 12.00 noon, when the PO asked applicant about late coming in the court hall, the applicant proclaimed that he was on the stage of retirement and that he was entitled to come late and even he was asked to leave the dais, he arrogantly replied that he would not leave the dais unless the PO gives some dictations. In that way, the applicant disturbed the decency, dignity and decorum of the court in the presence of the others.

iv) Fourthly, as a Private Secretary, he was forwarded the phone calls to the PO and the persons who tried to contact PO on the landline phone number are complaining that the applicant was answering their calls in discourteous manner and asking irrelevant questions. Such instances happened on 215* and 22”‘ March, 2017 al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document