Gaya Prasad vs Union Of India & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 935 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 10.02.2012

+       W.P.(C) 798/2012
GAYA PRASAD                                                    ... Petitioner
                                        versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                           ... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners          : Petitioner-in-person.
For the Respondent No.1      : Mr Sachin Datta


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner, who appears in person, has challenged the order dated

27.01.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,

New Delhi in OA 273/2012, whereby the petitioner's said Original Application

was dismissed. The relief sought by the petitioner before the Tribunal was for

quashing of the allegedly frivolous, false and fabricated charge-sheet vide order

No. 8/23/2010- Vig. II dated 19th August, 2010 at the earliest. The facts, as

indicated before the Tribunal are set out in paragraph 2 of the impugned order

and it would be suffice if we would reproduce the same.

"2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Assistant Director in Telecom Engineering Centre, Department of Telecom, New Delhi, was issued a charge memo dated 19.08.2010, whereby it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It may be stated that before issuing the aforesaid memo the applicant was placed under suspension. The gravamen of the charge against the applicant, as can be seen from the statement of article of charge annexed with the memo as Annexure-I and statement of imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour in support of articles of charge, Annexure-II, are that the applicant refused to abide by the instructions issued by his seniors, whereby he was directed to carry out the work of C&T Division and to put up the training proposals received from different officers of TEC, thus, he has failed to maintain absolute devotion to his duties and acted in a manner, which is unbecoming of Government servant, thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 3-A (a) and (b) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The second charge against the applicant was that applicant made frivolous and baseless complaint against the senior officers of the Department and used insulting and defamatory language against the superior officers and thus committed grave misconduct, which tantamount to insulting and insubordination to such a degree as to be incompatible with the relation of superior officers and subordinate officers. The charges against the applicant are required to be proved on the basis of 30 documents mentioned in the list of documents annexed with the memo (Annexure-III) and thus the charges were required to be proved on the basis of the list of witnesses annexed with the memo (Annexure IV). The challenge has been made to the aforesaid charge-sheet on the ground that the Director (C&T) and Director (Admn.) hatched a criminal conspiracy to cause him financial loss and mental harassment and the applicant was not provided with the sitting space, office accommodation, requisite resources, staff etc. and domain of work, duties and responsibilities were not provided to him despite being present in the office premises, despite the fact that he has made several requests for sitting space, requisite resources duties and working responsibilities. Whereas from the material placed on record, more particularly page-63 of the paper-book, it is

evident that DDG (CT) has directed the applicant to sit in the office of PS to DDG (CT) and use resources/staff etc. present there and of Director (CT) till adequate resources/staff etc. are arranged for him, but despite that applicant refused to obey the instructions of senior officers, i.e., DDG (CT) and Director (CT) and did not perform the task assigned to him. A perusal of this document further reveals that since PS was not posted with DDG (CT), as such, as an interim measure applicant was directed by the DDG (CT) to sit in the said room and use the resources/staff etc. there, which are sufficient for him to carry out the tasks assigned to him. Perusal of this document further reveals that there is only one DDG, one Director and only one Assistant Director in CT Division. Whatever responsibilities are assigned to DDG (CT), Director has to assist him so that work is done efficiently. Likewise, the Assistant Director is required to assist Director and has to act as a supporting officer, but despite that applicant refused the official work, which is specifically assigned to him in writing by the DDG (CT) and the period during which applicant did not perform the duty was also treated as dies non. Be that as it may, as already stated above, the allegations against the applicant in the charge-sheet are regarding disobedience of the order passed by the superior authorities and also using insulting and defamatory language against his superior officers, it is not permissible for us at this stage to go into the truth and correctness of the charges leveled against the applicant. Whether the charges are sustainable or not, is a matter to be gone into during enquiry proceedings and it is not a case of such nature where the charges framed against applicant are vague and are not elucidated by the statement of particulars or in any other manner or the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by an authority incompetent to initiate such proceedings etc. Thus, it is not permissible for us to quash the charge-memo at this stage solely on the ground that the charges leveled against the applicant are result of a criminal conspiracy hatched by the Director (C&T) and Director (Admn.) of Telecom Engineering Centre."

2. The Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the

case of Transport Commissioner, Madras-5 v. A. Radha Krishna Moorthy:

(1995) 1 SCC 332 in order to support its conclusion that the truth and

correctness of charges cannot be gone into by the Tribunal and more

particularly at a stage prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry.

3. From the narration of facts referred to above, it is apparent that certain

charges have been leveled against the petitioner and the petitioner also has very

strong grievances with regard to the said charges. He is at full liberty to take

whatever plea of defence he can before the Enquiry Officer and in that, there

shall be no hindrance insofar as the enquiry proceedings are concerned. Insofar

as the interference of the Tribunal is concerned, we entirely agree with the

conclusion of the Tribunal that it cannot interfere with the proceedings at this

stage, particularly when there are allegations on the part of the petitioner with

regard to the truth and correctness of charges and which would undeniably

require the enquiry proceedings to take place. The petitioner would have full

opportunity before the Enquiry Officer to establish that the charges are false and

/ or mala fide, as alleged by him. He would have an opportunity to go through

all the material which is sought to be relied upon against him and also to cross-

examine the witnesses who are sought to be produced against him. He can also

produce his own witnesses in defence.

4. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the Tribunal's order. The

writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K. JAIN, J FEBRUARY 10, 2012 SR