Dispensation of departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) demands cogent reasons proving impracticability due to witness intimidation or threats; mere allegation gravity or criminal pendency insufficient, holding inquiry is rule.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr.B.Anand, Member (A):

By way of filing of this Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following relief(s):

“i) To set-aside and quash the impugned dismissal order dated 24.11.2023, as also the order dated 11.01.2022, being utterly against the procedure of law established under the Indian Constitution and against the principles of natural justice;

ii) To pass any other or as this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in view of facts and circumstances of the case;

iii) To allow the present O.A.”

2. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed reply and have disputed and contested the claim of the applicant. The applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated his claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) at Headquarters w.e.f. 10.09.2012 and was posted to CBI, ACB, Delhi. He was subsequently transferred to CBI, EO-I, Delhi in October 2019 and thereafter to CBI, ACB, Mumbai vide order dated 30.12.2020.

4. While posted at Mumbai, allegations arose that the applicant entered into a criminal conspiracy with a private individual associated with a housekeeping agency engaged by M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. It was alleged that, being the custodian of a sensitive crime file, he prepared and photographed certain internal note-sheets and shared the same with the said individual with an intent to exert pressure upon the company for obtaining undue advantage. He was also alleged to have misused official records and committed theft of an official stamp.

5. On the basis of these allegations, case FIR No. RC-DAI-2021-A- 0044 dated 21.12.2021 was registered against the applicant and others u/s 120-B, 381, 465, 466of the IPC and Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant was arrested on 22.12.2021 and the criminal case is stated to be under investigation.

6. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the Disciplinary Authority, invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, dispensed with the regular departmental inquiry on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry and dismissed the applicant from service vide order dated 11.01.2022.

7. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred a departmental appeal, which came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.11.2023. Challenging the orders of dismissal and rejection of appeal, the applicant has filed the present O.A. before this Tribunal.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 10.09.2012 and was confirmed as a permanent employee after successful completion of probation. He was transferred and posted to CBI, ACB, Mumbai, with effect from 31.12.2020.

9. On 21.12.2021, an FIR was registered against the applicant under Sections 120-B, 381, 465, 466, 474 of the IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequent thereto, the applicant wa