Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Shankar Kumar Jha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(MD).No.20092 of 2023 and WMP(MD).No.16564 of 2023
Disciplinary Action - Writ Petition - Charge Memo - 28.09.2022 - The court upheld the validity of the charge memo issued against the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and the integrity of preliminary inquiries in disciplinary proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Commandant, challenged a charge memo alleging tampering with a general diary following a fatal incident during a mock drill. Previous inquiries had cleared him, but a later report indicated manipulation, leading to the charge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge memo was valid as it was based on a forensic report indicating tampering. The petitioner failed to provide evidence supporting his claims of previous inquiries clearing him.
Issues: Whether the charge memo issued against the petitioner was valid given prior inquiries and the acceptance of a request for a fresh inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the validity of the charge memo was supported by subsequent forensic findings, and previous inquiries did not preclude further investigation into the allegations.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed by a Commandant, CISF Unit challenging the impugned charge memo dated 28.09.2022 issued by the fourth respondent in the writ petition.
(A) Factual Matrix:
2.According to the petitioner, while he was a Senior Commandant at CISF Farakka on 24.07.2017, a fire mock drill was conducted. During the said drill, a constable by name Roushan Kumar Rai had slipped and fell down in a water pit and had passed away. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by a Group commandant and after detailed enquiry, he had submitted a report on
24.11.2017 to the effect that there is no allegation of tampering of general diary.
3.The petitioner had further contended that on 31.10.2017, another preliminary enquiry was conducted by COI Board headed by Senior Commandant and after completion of enquiry, a report was submitted on 24.08.2018 again to the effect that there were no manipulation in the general diary report dated 24.07.2017. After a period of 2 years, another enquiry was ordered on 18.02.2019 directing the fifth respondent to conduct a preliminary enquiry and submit a report with regard to the same incident. The fifth respondent had filed a report on 10.07.2019 to the effect that there were manipulation in the general diary with regard to the accident that took place on 24.07.2017.
4.In view of the above said facts, the preliminary enquiry conducted by the fifth respondent and the report filed by her on 10.07.2019 was accepted and based upon the said preliminary report, the impugned charge memo has been issued to the petitioner on 28.09.2022 proposing to impose minor penalty. This charge memo is challenged by the writ petitioner.
(B) Contentions of the counsel appearing on either side:
5.According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent out of malice and with malafide intention in order to implicate the petitioner, had submitted such a false report. According to the petitioner, he had submitted a representation on 13.09.2019 seeking a fresh enquiry. Based upon the said representation, it is contended that the second respondent by his proceedings dated 18.11.2019 has directed the fifth respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry.
However, the first respondent had declined to conduct a fresh enquiry.
6.The charge memo is challenged by the writ petitioner on the following grounds:
(a)When three of the senior officials have already conducted a preliminary enquiry and found that there are no manipulation in the general diary, the fourth enquiry ought not to have been ordered. He relied upon the guidelines issued to this effect and contended that repeated preliminary enquiry shall not be conducted by nominating different officials on the same subject.
(b)Based upon the previous preliminary enquiry report an order of displeasure has already been passed on 02.08.2019. Therefore, the enquiry proceedings have got concluded on 02.08.2019 itself. Therefore, the charge memo ought not to have been issued on 28.09.2020.
(c) When the request of the petitioner dated 13.09.2019, for a fresh enquiry, has been accepted and an order to the said effect has been passed on 18.11.2019, the present impugned charge memo is not legally sustainable.
7.Per contra, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondent authorities extensively relying upon the counter filed by the respondents had contended that after charge memo was issued, the petitioner was granted several opportunities to submit his explanation. Instead of submitting his reply, the petitioner was making repeated requests to provide certain documents. Though there is no provision under Central Civil Service Rules for providing such documents, only to comply with the principles of natural justice, the petitioner was permitted to inspect the documents, on 06.03.2023 , 03.07.2023 and 17.08.2023. Even thereafter the petitioner has not chosen to submit his reply for more than 10 months. Constrained by the non co-operation on the side of the petitioner, further progress wa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
