CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI

O.A. No.3612 of 2014

Orders reserved on : 17.12.2018

Orders pronounced on : 20.12.2018

Hon’ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)

Hon’ble Mr. S.N. Terdal, Member (J)

Smt. Amita Sudan, Aged-51 Years,

W/o Sh. Sunil Sudan,

Working as Deputy Director (FAS),

Department of Woman & Child Development,

Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi,

R/o 519-C, Sector-3, R.K. Puram,

New Delhi.

....Applicant

(By Advocate : Shri Yogesh Sharma)

VERSUS

1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,

Through the Chief Secretary,

New Secretariat, Near ITO,

New Delhi.

2. The Principal Secretary,

Department of Social Welfare

and Wokan & Child Development,

Govt. of NCT of Delhi,

GLNS Complex, Delhi Gate, Delhi.

.....Respondents

(By Advocate : Shri Kapil Agnihotri)

O R D E R

Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A):

By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking the following

reliefs:-

“(i)

That the Hon‟ble Tribunal may graciously be

pleased to pass an order of quashing the

impugned order dated 27.06.2011 (Annex.A/1),

2

disagreement

note

(Annex.A/5),

appellate

authority order dated 20.08.2014 (Annex.A/2),

order dated 26.12.2013 (Annex.A/3), charge sheet

dated

13.07.2005

(Annex.A/7)

and

entire

proceedings declaring to the effect that the same

are illegal, unjust, against the rules and against

the principle of natural justice and consequently

pass an order directing the respondents to grant

all the consequential benefits to the applicant

along with arrears of difference of pay and

allowances with interest.

(ii)

Any other relief which the Hon‟ble Tribunal deem

fit and proper may also be granted to the

applicants along with the costs of litigation.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant, who is

presently working as Deputy Director (FAS), while working as

Senior Superintendent in Social Welfare Department, a major

penalty charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules,

1965 was issued to the applicant vide Memorandum dated

13.7.2005 and alleged the following article of charges:

“Article-I

Smt. Amita Sudan, Supdt./CDPO, while working in Old

Age Home, Kalkaji made payment to suppliers for

Rs.42050/- and 12060/- on 30.06.98 for the goods

which was physically received in the home on 14.09.98

that too only after knowing that Ms. Raj Rani, LDC has

complained about her unlawful action to the Head

Quarter on 10.9.98.

Article-II

Smt. Amita Sudan, Supdt./CDPO, while working in Old

Age Home, Kalkaji made payment to suppliers for

Rs.42050/- and 12060/- without observing codal

formalities.

Article-III

Smt. Amita Sudan, Supdt./CDPO pressed upon Smt.

Raj Rani to make the entries of articles in Stock Register

3

which were not received in the Home, till the date of

complaint made by Smt. Raj Rani in this regard.

Thus, Smt. Amita Sudan, Supdt/CDPO (Social

Welfare Deptt) failed to maintain devotion to duty,

absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of

Govt. Servant, thereby violated the provisions of rule 3

of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.”

3. The contention of the applicant is that the said

Memorandum of charges were issued by the Chief Secretary,

Delhi, who was not the disciplinary authority of the applicant

and even no approval was taken from the disciplinary

authority before issuing the said impugned chargesheet and

the said charge sheet is liable to be quashed on this sole

ground.

3.1

Further contention of the applicant that the inquiry

officer, who was appointed by the said Chief Secretary, Delhi

to conduct the inquiry in the matter, has conducted the

inquiry and submitted his report in which none of the charges

was proved against the applicant.

3.2

Another contention of the applicant is that Joint

Secretary (Vigilance) issued a disagreement notice to the

applicant vide Memorandum dated 19.8.2010 to the inquiry

officer report whereas the directorate of vigilance has no rule

and no authority to issue or even to communicate an