U.O.I. Thr. Its Secty., And Anr vs Siyaram S/O Baliram And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 1053 Bom

                                                                           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.





                                                                                                           wp.3587.09





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

wp.3587.09

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

wp.3587.09

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.

wp.3587.09

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

wp.3587.09

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

wp.3587.09

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