wp.3587.09
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 3587/2009
1) Union of India Through its Secretary Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation Sardar Patel Bhavan Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 001.
2) Director and Head of Office
Data Processing Centre,
National Sample Survey Organization
CGO Complex 'B' block
Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440 006. ..PETITIONERS v e r s u s
1) Shri Siyaram s/o Baliram (Dead) Through LRs:
1a) Sushila s/o Siyaram Sharma
Aged adult (wife )
1b) Brajesh s/o Siyaram Sharma
Aged adult (son)
1c) Ramesh s/o Siyaram Sharma
Aged adult (son)
1d) Seema w/o Brajesh Sharma
Aged adult (daughter )
All R/o Flat no. A-4, G-2
Govind Gourkhede Complex,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur-440 006.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 00:39:16 :::
wp.3587.09
2
2) Central Administrative Tribunal
Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur
CGO Complex Seminary Hills
Nagpur-440 006. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mrs. M.P. Munshi, counsel for petitioners Mr. N.R.Saboo for respondent nos. 1(a) to (d) ...........................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 27th March, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 24.02.2009, allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent no.1, after holding that the petitioners could not have imposed the punishment of withholding two increments of the petitioners with permanent effect.
2. The respondent no.1 was working as an Assistant Director in the Department of National Sample Survey Organization. While he was posted at Nagpur, he was allotted a residential accommodation in the year 1996. The allotment was continued till 03.12.1999. In view of the complaints that the respondent no.1 had inducted a sub-tenant/sub-lessee in the Government accommodation, the Central Bureau of Investigation team conducted a raid on ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 00:39:16 ::: wp.3587.09 3 the Government quarters that was allotted to the respondent no.1. It was observed during the raid that the respondent no.1 had illegally sub-let the quarters to Smt.Sangeeta Singh, who was running a private College, in the name and style of 'Sachdeva College' in Nagpur, on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/-. After the CBI submitted a report, a departmental enquiry was conducted against the respondent no.1 and the Inquiry Officer held that though the petitioners had not succeeded in proving that the respondent no.1 had sub-let the Government accommodation from 1997 to 1999, it had succeeded in proving that the respondent no.1 had sub-let the Government accommodation from July,1999. After the charge was held to be proved the petitioners, after granting an opportunity to the respondent no.1, imposed the punishment of withholding of two increments of the respondent no.1, with permanent effect. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for the sake of brevity). The Tribunal, by the impugned order, set aside the order of punishment imposed upon the respondent no.1. The order of the Tribunal is challenged by the petitioners in the instant petition.
3. Mrs. Munshi, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the Original Application filed by ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 00:39:16 ::: wp.3587.09 4 the respondent no.1. It is submitted that the Tribunal virtually sat over the report of the Inquiry Officer and after re-appreciating the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the finding of the Inquiry Officer that the respondent no.1 had sub-let the Government accommodation from July 1999, was incorrect. It is submitted that it is well-settled that the Courts or the Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the Inquiry Officer unless they are perverse. It is submitted that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on the observation note prepared during the CBI raid and the said note is duly proved by the two witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted that the Tribunal erroneously held that though as per the charge the respondent no.1 had sub-let the Government accommodation for about two years and it was proved that the Government accommodation was sub-let from July 1999, the charge could not have been said to be proved. It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer has appreciated the evidence as if it was deciding a trial, to hold that Smt.Radhadevi, the mother of Smt.Sangeeta Singh, who was present during the CBI raid, had affixed her signature in Deonagari script, which showed that Smt.Radhadevi did not understand English and the note prepared in English, was stated to have been read over to her in vernacular. It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent no.
1. ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 00:39:16 ::: wp.3587.09 5
4. Shri Saboo, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has supported the order of the Tribunal. It is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly found that though the charge pertained to the sub-letting of the premises of the Government accommodation for a period of two years, the Inquiry officer had found that the Government accommodation was sub-let from July 1999 to Smt. Sangeeta Singh. It is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered that the charge levelled against the respondent no.1 could not have been proved on the basis of the observation note prepared by the CBI, as Smt.Radhadevi has signed on the observation note in Deonagari script and it was observed in the memo that the note was read over to Smt.Radhadevi in vernacular. It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly held that the charge levelled against the respondent no.1 could not be said to have been proved as the panch witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners, cannot be the substitute for Smt.Radhadevi.
5. On a reading of the impugned order, it appears that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in reversing the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. It is well-settled that the Courts and Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the Inquiry Officer and cannot appreciate the evidence that is appreciated by the Inquiry Officer. In the instant case, several witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners to prove the charge ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 00:39:16 ::: wp.3587.09 6 against the respondent no.1. Two employees of the petitioners that were the Panch witnesses to the observation-note prepared by the CBI, had clearly stated that the observation note was correctly prepared after conducting the raid. It appeared to the Inquiry Officer from the observation note that was duly proved by the petitioners by the examination of two panch witnesses that the respondent no.1 had sub-leased the Government accommodation to Smt. Sangeeta Singh, who was running a private College in Nagpur. Sangeeta Singh's mother Smt.Radhadevi had clearly stated, as is noted by the Inquiry Officer from the observation note, that on the first of every month, the respondent no.1 came to the quarters to collect the monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/- from Smt.Sangeeta Singh towards rent. It was observed in the observation memo that the Smt. Radhadevi, the mother of Sangeeta Singh had occupied the complete Government accommodation. Material was placed before the Inquiry Officer to point out that the respondent no.1 had purchased a flat in a Housing Society in Hazaripahad where his family was residing and he has secured a telephone and gas connection in the said accommodation in his name. On the basis of material on record, especially the observation note prepared after the CBI raid, and the material to point out that the respondent no.1 and his family members were occupying another flat that was purchased after securing loan by him, the Inquiry officer recorded a finding that the respondent no.1 had sub-let the Government accommodation from ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 00:39:16 ::: wp.3587.09 7 July 1999. We have perused the report of the Inquiry Officer minutely. We do not find any perversity in the appreciation of the evidence by the Inquiry Officer. The Tribunal was not justified in sitting in appeal over the findings of the Inquiry Officer in the Original Application filed by the respondent no.1. The Tribunal was not justified in taking another view in the matter by re- appreciating the material on record. Also, if the charge pertained to the sub- letting of the Government accommodation for a period of nearly two years and if it was proved that the respondent no.1 had sub-let the Government accommodation from July 1999, it cannot be said that the respondent no.1 had not sub-let the Government accommodation. the Tribunal has reversed the findings of the Inquiry Officer for reasons, that cannot be sustained.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Original Application filed by the respondent no.1 stands dismissed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 00:39:16 :::