Amar Singh Verma vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6647 Del

$~4
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
             +       LPA No.716/2014 & CM Nos.17776-17778/2014

                                      Date of Decision: 10th December, 2014

      AMAR SINGH VERMA                                   ..... Appellant
                   Through             Mr.Rajiv Bakshi, Adv.

                             versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ORS                               ..... Respondents

                    Through            Mr.Vikram Jetly, CGSC for R-1/UOI.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

      GITA MITTAL, J (ORAL)

1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant who submits that

the entire relevant record has been placed before this court. It appears

that the appellant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the

following charges:-

"Article I

That the said Shri A.S. Verma, while functioning as Asstt. Secretary (Admn.) during the period 1992-95 showed undue favour to Gandhi Memorial Medical Training Institute & College, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot by directing the Registrar, Himachal Pradesh Nursing Registration Council, Simla to register the Gandhi Memorial Medical Training

Institute & College with their Council and give the affiliation/recognisition, by issuing an official communication even though you were not authorised and vested with such powers including statutory powers in violation of the provisions of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 and thereby unbecoming of an employee of Indian Nursing Council in discharge of your duties during the relevant period.

That Shri A.S. Verma made an official communication at his own level without proper competent authority and addressing a communication dated 15.9.92 to Medical Supdt., Gandhi Memorial Medical Training Institute & College, Pathankot giving approval to start the General Nursing Training in their institute as a special case and also they can get the approval of the State Nursing Council of Himachal Pradesh to whom they had already applied for affiliation in total violation of the provisions of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947.

That Shri A.S. Verma failed to observe the normal protocol to be followed while addressing official communication to V.V.I.Ps, but made an official communication at his own level without authority addressing the Hon'ble Governor, Himachal Pradesh, Simla and Health Commissioner cum Health Secretary, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Simla to allow 27 first year General Nursing students of the Gandhi Memorial Medical Institute, Pathankot to appear in supplementary October annual Rs.1,000/- to be conducted by Himachal Pradesh State Nursing Registration Council, in total violation of the provisions of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947.

That Shri A.S. Verma made an official communication at his own level without proper authority and in violation of protocol to be observed in such maters but issued a notice dated 4.1.94 to V.V.I.Ps namely Hon'ble Governor, Himachal Pradesh, Simla, Shri Rajiv Bhaan Singh, Hon'ble Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh and the Registrar, Himachal Pradesh Nursing Registration Council, Simla, to derecognise the Himachal State Nursing Registration

Council for its non co-operation and the orders of the Indian Nursing Council.

That Shri A.S. Verma had made an official communication at his own level without proper authority dated 19th Nov.93 addressed to Medical Supdt., Gandhi Memorial Medical Training Institutes and Hospital, Pathankot by making an incorrect statement that their Institute had already been recognised/affiliated by the Himachal Pradesh State Nursing Registration Council after getting due permission from Indian Nursing Council with a direction to deposit or send Rs.1,000/- as affiliation fee in order to inspect their Institution for recognition with Indian Nursing Council. He also made an official communication addressed to the same Institute acknowledging the receipt of Rs.1,000/- and passing a receipt dated 6.12.94 thereon.

By the above acts of commission and omission Shri A.S. Verma has failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming an employee of Indian Nursing Council contravening thereby provisions of Rule 3.1(ii), 3.1(iii) of the CCS (Conduct Rules), 1965.

Article 2

That Shri A.S. Verma while working as Asstt.

Secretary, Indian Nursing Council during the period 1992-95 had issued number of official communications at his own level without proper authority and addressed to various Institutions namely Smt.Narayani DRK Institute of Nursing, Hassan; Pavan Institute of Nursing, Kolar, Karnataka, Maruti School of Nurisng, Bangalore; A.N.C. Hospital, M.P.H.W. Training Institute, Vellore; Father Muller's College of Nursing, Bangalore, Unity Nursing Institute, Mangalore; Institute of Nursing & City Hospital, Mangalore; Santosh School of Nursing, Karim Nagar; Karnataka Rural and Educational Development Association, Bangalore, Florence School of Nursing, Bangalore; Rajeshwari School of Nursing, Hyderabad, Navodaya College of Nursing, Raichur; Nightingale Institute of Nursing, Hubli, Swathi School of

Nursing, Tirupati; College of Nursing, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal; Kampogaudi Institute of Nursing, Bangalore; School of Nursing Vitoria Hospital, Bangalore; S.K. Morch School of Nursing, Chickbalapur; Bellary Institute of Nursing, S.U.J.S. Hospital, Bellary, St.Gregaries Mission Hospital School of Nursing, Parumala; informing them that the institutions had been included in the list of recognised Institutions prepared by the Indian Nursing Council.

That Shri A.S. Verma had acted in a manner to favour various Nursing Institutions by addressing official communications in violation of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947.

By the above acts of commission and omission Shri A.S. Verma has failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming an employee of Indian Nursing Council contravening thereby provisions of Rule 3.1(ii), 3.1(iii) of the CCS (Conduct Rules), 1965.

Article - 3

That a writ petition was filed in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Simla in the year 1993 in writ petition No.1537 of 1993 at the instance of Gandhi Memorial Medical Training Institute & College, Pathankot for certain reliefs including for a relief against respondent No.2 to hold regular examination in future for all the courses in accordance with the guidelines and instructions of Indian Nursing Council from time to time. The Hon'ble High Court by its judgment dated 28.9.94 has observed that the facts of the case and the manoeuvres and the manipulations resorted to by the petitioner by Shri A.S. Verma on behalf of the 3 rd respondent and Mrs.R.D. Verma to make it appear that recognition/affiliation has been secured by the petitioner, the case of the students which is identical to that of the petitioner cannot be viewed differently. Thereby the writ petition was dismissed. That the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh had observed that on a careful consideration of the

correspondence leads the court with the impression that Mr.A.S. Verma and Mrs.R.D. Verma had for reasons which are not very clear, though is fit to join hands in order to make it appear that the Institute run by the petitioner had been inspected and also found to be fulfilled of the requirements justifying the grant of recognition/affiliation which was also directly to be given by the 3rd respondent when it had no authority or power to do so. That the observations/remarks passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh is still available and not expunged. That Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by their order dated 3.8.95 dismissed the special writ petition filed at the instance of the Gandhi Memorial Medical Training Institute & College, Pathankot.

By the above acts of commission and omission Shri A.S. Verma has failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming an employee of Indian Nursing Council contravening thereby provisions of Rule 3.1(ii), 3.1(iii) of the CCS (Conduct Rules), 1965."

(Emphasis by us)

2. It is an admitted position before us that the appellant did not

challenge the contents of the charges either in response to the show cause

or the memorandum which was issued to him informing him of the

proposed inquiry on the above charges. A brief reply dated 20 th August,

1996 does not dispute any of the allegations levelled against the

appellant.

3. It appears that the appellant was implicated by the High Court of

Himachal Pradesh in its judgment dated 26th July, 1994 in WP (C)

No.1537 of 1997. The Special Leave Petition assailing the judgment of

the High Court was rejected by the Supreme Court of India by its order

dated 3rd August, 1995.

4. At annexure III to the charge sheet, the respondent enclosed the

documents relied upon in the inquiry to prove the charges. These

documents include these judgments. The appellant did not seek any relief

before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the writ proceedings nor

before the Supreme Court of India, despite admitted knowledge of the

adverse comments against his conduct.

5. It is noteworthy that the disciplinary proceedings rested on official

records and documents. The basic issue was the authority of the

respondent to issue letters of recognition to the Gandhi Memorial

Medical Training Institute & Hospital, Pathankot as well as letters to

twenty seven students of first year of General Nursing in this Institute

to appear in the examinations. The other issue raised in the disciplinary

proceedings was the legality of the action of the appellant in writing

complaints to the higher authorities against his superiors without

following proper channels. It is undisputed that the functioning of the

organization was to abide by the statutory provisions of the Indian

Nursing Council Act, 1947. The appellant admittedly had to show

authority and jurisdiction to undertake the alleged acts under the statutory

enactments and the rules & regulations thereunder. The appellant did not

state either before the disciplinary authorities or even the writ court that

he did have such jurisdiction. There is also not a whisper of an assertion

in the present appeal, through which we have been taken by the learned

counsel, to the effect that the appellant had the authority to do any of the

acts with which he was charged.

6. The appellant was served with the recommendations of the inquiry

officer dated 23rd April, 1997 but did not file any challenge thereto. The

appellant admittedly did not file any response to the recommendations of

the inquiry officer. As a result, the disciplinary authority accepted the

recommendations and by its order dated 1st May, 1997, imposed the

punishment of dismissal from service upon the appellant with effect from

30th April, 1997 (FN). The appellant's representation dated 30 th April,

1997 came to be rejected by the order dated 30 th October, 1997 by the

Executive Committee of the respondent no.2.

7. The appellant assailed the inquiry proceedings as well as his

dismissal from service by way of WP (C) No.4813 of 1998. This writ

petition was heard at length by the learned Single Judge. The challenge

raised by the appellant on legal grounds to the proceedings and the orders

of the respondents came to be dismissed by the order dated 10th July,

2013 which has been challenged by way of the present appeal.

8. We find that the learned Single Judge has extensively addressed

every contention of the appellant and has rejected the same placing

reliance on judicial precedents and well settled principles of

Administrative Law. The learned Single Judge has noted the fact that the

inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority had relied on the records of

the respondent which, given the fact that the appellant was not disputing

the merits of the charges, was sufficient to establish the same against the

appellant when tested on the benchmark of preponderance of probability.

It is trite that placing of undisputed record before the inquiry officer in

the disciplinary proceedings would be sufficient for acceptance in the

inquiry proceedings without formal proof. Compliance with the

principles of evidence of proving the same through witnesses as is done

in the civil court, would be wholly unnecessary in such facts and

circumstances as obtain in the present case. In any case, none of the

objections placed before the learned Single Judge were taken either

before the inquiry officer or before the disciplinary authority.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, examined the

record of the case placed along with the appeal and find that there is no

merit therein. We, therefore, deem it wholly unnecessary to formally

condone the delay which has been accrued in filing the appeal.

The appeal and applications are therefore dismissed.

(GITA MITTAL) JUDGE

(J.R. MIDHA) JUDGE DECEMBER 10, 2014 aa