Delhi High Court
All India Institute Of Medical ... vs Ram Kishore & Anr. on 21 February, 2014
Author: Gita Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1188/2014
% Date of decision: 21st February, 2014
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ANR.
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Sumit Babbar and Mr.Sahil
S.Chauhan, Advocates for
Mr.Mehmood Pracha, SLC.
versus
RAM KISHORE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.A.P.Singh, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
C.M.No.2481/2014 (for exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1188/2014 & C.M.No.2480/2014 (for stay)
1. The writ petitioner assails the order dated 26th November, 2013
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal accepting the
O.A.No.2047/2012 which was filed by the respondent challenging the
order of the disciplinary authority dated 15th November, 2011 as well
the appellate authority's order dated 9th May, 2012 whereby the
respondent's appeal was rejected.
2. It appears that the respondent was subjected to disciplinary
proceedings based on the following charge:
"That the said Shri Ram Kishore while working as
Masalchi/Bearer in the Cafetaria Department AIIMS stolen,
two gas cylinder from the gas manifold room and taken away
by three wheeler (Auto rickshaw) on 23.07.2006 in between
8.30 P.M. to 9.00 P.M.
Shri Ram Kishore is thus responsible for gross
misconduct, misbehaviour and has failed to maintain absolute
integrity, devotion to duty and has acted in a manner
unbecoming of an Institute employee; thereby contravening
Rule 3 (1) (ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as
applicable to the employees of the Institute."
3. The respondent disputed the charges levelled against him vide
his reply dated 23rd June, 2008. It was pointed out that prior to the
charge sheet dated 7th January, 2008, the petitioner had issued a
charge memo dated 11th December, 2006 containing identical
allegations which were denied by him vide reply dated 22nd
December, 2006 and no further action was taken thereon.
4. However, the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 5th
August, 2008 holding that the charged officer had admitted the article
of charge and therefore it stood proved. Three years after the
submission of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed an
order dated 15th November, 2011 accepting the report and imposing
the penalty of compulsory retirement upon the respondent. His
appeal dated 14th December, 2011 was rejected by the order dated 9th
May, 2012.
5. The respondent has challenged these orders against him by way
of O.A.No.2047/2013 inter alia on the ground that there was no
evidence at all before the enquiry officer and that a communication
dated 23rd June, 2008 had been wrongly treated as admission of guilt
on his part. Given the stand of the petitioner, we may set out the
letter dated 23rd June, 2008 wherein the respondent has stated as
follows:
"To
The Inquiry Officer
AIIMS
Sub:- Departmental Inquiry against Sh.Ram Kishore,
Masalchi/Bearer under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965.
Sir,
With reference to letter No.F.Security/June, 2008 dated
12th June, 2008 received from Sh.R.S.Rawat, Security
Officer/Presenting Officer on the subject cited above, I am to
state that I was present on 23.7.2006 upto 9.00 PM. Sh.Prem
Singh asked me to bring auto rickshaw at Kitchen Gate (Exit
Gate). I was influenced of heavy liquor and asked by
Sh.Prem Singh to help him for loading of two LPG Cylinder
in auto rickshaw. Since I was under influence of liquor, two
LPG Cylinder from gas manifold room were loaded in auto
rickshaw and I unloaded two cylinders at the residence i.e. A-
77, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi of Sh.Prem Lal.
Further, it is staed that I committed my mistake and I
request in your honour that I may be excused this time and
also I am stated that in future, I will not repeat such activities
therefore, the case may kindly be considered on sympathetic
ground.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(RAM KISHORE)
Masalchi/Bearer
Cafetaria, AIIMS
Dated 23.6.2008"
6. The Central Administrative Tribunal has considered the import
of the statement made by the respondent in the letter dated 23 rd June,
2008 holding that the respondent had not admitted guilt of the charge
of theft but had only stated that on 24th April, 2008, he had been asked
by another employee Prem Singh to load cylinders in an auto
rickshaw. It was stated that these cylinders were unloaded on
instructions of Prem Singh at his residence (Prem Singh's residence).
The Tribunal has also noted that even before the enquiry officer on
24th April, 2008, the respondent had stated that he had simply acted as
per the instructions of Prem Singh without intention of committing
theft.
7. It is an admitted position that other than the said letter dated
23rd June, 2008, the enquiry officer recorded no evidence at all. In
this background, it was held that the recommendations of the enquiry
officer were based on no evidence and that there was no admission of
the charge by the respondent as well. The Tribunal has therefore set
aside the inquiry report dated 5th August, 2008, the Disciplinary
Authority's order dated 15th November, 2011 and the Appellate
Authority's order dated 9th May, 2012. The petitioner has been given
liberty to proceed afresh if deem appropriate and pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law.
8. The petitioner has not pointed out any material which enables
us to take a view different than that taken by the Tribunal. There was
no evidence in support of the charge against the petitioner before the
enquiry officer. We therefore find no merit in the writ petition. The
writ petition and the application are hereby dismissed.
Needless to say that liberty granted by the Tribunal shall remain
with the petitioner.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
FEBRUARY 21, 2014
rb
