Disciplinary proceedings invalidated due to violations of natural justice, including denial of assistance and bias of inquiry officer, necessitating reinstatement and fresh inquiry.

ORDER

PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following relief:

“....to call for the records connected with and related to the Order No.NIRDPR/Vig/2018-19, dt.11.05.2020, issued by the 2^nd Respondent and the Order No.NIRDPR/Vig/2018/19, dt.03.07.2019, issued by the 1^st Respondent and declare them as patently illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory in blatant violation of principles of natural justice and in clear violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside or quash them in toto and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:

i. The applicant, while working as Upper Division Clerk, in the 1^st Respondent Institute, which is one of the autonomous organizations, functioning under the control and authority of the 2^nd Respondent, was placed under suspension, vide Order, dt.28.02.2018, and his suspension was extended from time to time. A charge memorandum, dt.17.08.2018, was served on the applicant, on 21.08.2018. The charge memo contained the following four Articles of Charge –

a. The applicant accessed the e-office file, containing 127 pages, of the Professor & Head of the Panchayat Raj Centre, Dr.Y.Bhaskar Rao, to whom he was attached, through impersonation.

b. The applicant shared the e-office file, unauthorizedly, with Dr.V.Krishna Murthy, a former employee of the 1^st Respondent Institute, and Dr.G.Valentina, Associate Professor of the 1^st Respondent Institute.

c. The applicant enabled the aforesaid persons to share the e-file contents with outside agencies, thereby, attempting to bring bad name to the 1^st Respondent Institute.

d. The applicant worked as unauthorised source to outsiders, including Dr.V.Krishna Murthy, reflected in the e-mail communication, dt.15.12.2017, in which documents pertaining to recruitments, posts filled, etc., had been sought.

ii. The sum and substance of the allegations against the applicant was that he failed to maintain absolute integrity, high ethical standards and honesty in the discharge of his duties, thus, violating the provisions under Rules 3 and 11 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules as well as Rules 9, 11 and 20 of the NIRDPR Employee Conduct Rules ( NIRDPR Rules , for short).

iii. It is submitted that the applicant submitted a representation, dt.21.08.2018, to the 1^st Respondent, questioning as to how the CCS (Conduct) Rules could be invoked against him without the same being adopted by the 1^st Respondent Institute. The applicant also highlighted the discrimination that he was subjected to when compared to another member of the staff of the 1^st Respondent Institute, Mr.K.Ravinder Reddy, Sr.Accountant, against whom no action was forthcoming, in spite of serious misconduct on his part. It is alleged that the 1^st Respondent did not clarify the point on the CCS (Conduct) Rules being invoked against him and failed to explain as to why no action was contemplated against Mr.K.Ravinder Reddy. However, the 1^st Respondent appointed Sri K.Padmanabha Rao, Additional Project Director, as the Inquiring Authority (I.A.), the 3^rd Respondent herein, by invoking Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules r/w Bye-law Nos.56 and 56-A of the NIRD Service Bye-laws.

iv. The applicant objected to the appointment of the 3^rd Respondent as Inquiry Officer (I.O.), with a specific averment of bias and petitioned t