CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH

RA 176/2018

OA 1470/2015

MA 4381/2018

C.P 561/2018

Reserved on 14.12.2018

Pronounced on 19.12.2018

Hon’ble Mr. K.N.Shrivastava, Member (A)

Hon’ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J)

V.K.Gulati S/o Sh. C.P.Gulati,

Executve Engineer (E) (Retd.),

NDMC, C-379, SFS Flats,

Triveni Apartments, Sheikh Sarai,

Phase-1, New Delhi-110017.

… Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr.K.L.Manhas )

.

VERSUS

New Delhi Municipal Council,

Through its Chairman,

Palika Kendra,

New Delhi-110001

… Respondents

(By Advocate: Mrs. Sriparna Chatterjee)

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. S.N.Terdal, Member (J):

Heard Mr.K.L.Manhas, counsel for applicant and Mrs. Sriparna

Chatterjee, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all the

documents produced by both the parties.

2. In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

(i)

To quash and set aside the impugned Memorandums of

charges /charge-sheets dated 10.04.2015 and 13.04.2015

(A1 and A2 respectively) together with the Memo dated

03.12.2013 (A3) as well as all the orders passed in

consequence thereof which affect the retiral benefits to the

applicant adversely.

(ii)

To direct the respondents to allow all the consequential

benefits to the applicant without taking into consideration

the impugned Memorandums.

OA 1470/2015

2

(iii)

To direct the respondents to pay interest @ 18% per

annum for the delayed period of payment of his retiral

dues till the date of their actual payment to the applicant.

(iv)

To pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as deemed proper

in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of

justice.

(v)

To award the applicant the cost of this litigation.”

3. The relevant facts of the case are that the applicant was placed

under suspension vide order dated 28.10.2010. The applicant retired

on 31.10.2010. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the

applicant vide Memorandum dated 10.04.2015 and vide another

Memorandum dated 13.04.2015 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA)

Rules, 1965 for as many as 8 Article of charges.

4. Along with the article of charges, statement of imputation, list of

witnesses and list of documents were furnished to the applicant. As the

applicant neither admitted nor denied the article of charges, an

departmental enquiry was held. Before issuing the Memorandum of

charges, a Memorandum dated 03.12.2014 was issued by the Director

(Vigilance) seeking the explanation of the applicant regarding the

various lapses. The applicant has challenged the legality and validity of

these Memorandum of charges issued on 10.04.2015 and 13.04.2015

and the memorandum calling for the explanation by the Director of

Vigilance dated 03.12.2014.

5. The counsel for the applicant vehemently and strenuously

contended that the Memorandum of charges which have been issued

under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is bad in law. The

contention of the applicant is that the respondents-organisation has

OA 1470/2015

3

adopted the CCS (CCA) Rules only in the year 2016 and as such

issuing the chargesheet under CCS (CCA) Rules in 2015 is bad in law.

6. The counsel for the respondents has at the time of hearing

produced several documents concerning the applicant right from the

date of joining of the applicant in the service of the respondents

organisation. Though the various service rules applicable to Central

Government employees

were not specifically adopted

by the

respondents-organization before 2016 yet from the documents

produced by the counsel for the respondents referred to above, it is

clear that the respondents have been following all the service rules

applicable to Central Government employees in their organization.

Further as submitted by the counsel for respondents that the CCS

(CCA) rules are standard rules providing reasonable opportunity of

being heard to the employees in conducting the departmental