Delhi High Court
Uoi & Anr. vs R.V.Yadav on 26 September, 2014
3.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 26.09.2014
% W.P.(C) 1266/2007
UOI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC along with
Mr. Nasir Ahmed, Advocate.
versus
R.V.YADAV ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Sameer Sharma &
Ms.Tinu Bajwa, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The grievance of the petitioner Union of India (UOI) in these
proceedings is against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal
(CAT/ Tribunal) dated 19.09.2006 allowing O.A. No.2541/2005 filed by the
respondent/ applicant.
2. Brief facts are that the respondent/ applicant was working as Assistant
Registrar of Trademarks when on 25.03.1998, allegations were levelled
against him for having accepted illegal gratification for allotting trademark
on 26.03.1998. As a matter of fact, these allegations led to investigation and
criminal proceedings and registration of FIR No.RC-16(A)/98 by the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI). However, the investigation culminated in a
final report recommending closure; that report did not find any evidence
regarding the allegations of acceptance of illegal gratification imputed
against the applicant. The closure report was accepted by the Special Judge
by order dated 25.04.2004.
3. In the meanwhile, upon recommendations of the CBI, disciplinary
proceedings were initiated by issuance of a charge sheet under Rule 14 of
the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
for major penalty. These proceedings culminated in findings of guilt by the
Inquiry Officer; a copy of the report was furnished to the respondent/
applicant, who represented against it.
4. As was required by the relevant rules, the disciplinary authority
sought the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), and
thereafter, of the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC) as to the
nature of the punishment to be imposed. The disciplinary authority had
proposed imposition of a major penalty whereas the UPSC, on the other
hand, advised that the major penalty of dismissal may be imposed.
Thereafter, the respondent/ applicant was, in fact, dismissed from service,
which lead to his filing of the Original Application.
5. Various contentions with respect to violation of rules embodying
principles of natural justice, particularly with regard to non furnishing of
documents relied upon, and the absence of opportunity to deal with UPSC's
opinion, were urged. The CAT by its impugned order accepted the
respondent/ applicant's contentions and quashed the dismissal order.
6. It was argued on behalf of UOI that the impugned order is an error of
law given the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala &
Others Vs. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364. It was highlighted that in the
event the Court or Tribunal concludes that certain infirmities or irregularities
have crept into inquiry proceedings, the entire penalty order cannot be
quashed altogether, and that the appropriate course to take would be
relegating the parties to the stage from where the infirmity has crept in.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/ applicant submitted that given the
nature of the allegations, and the fact that the final closure report was
accepted about a decade ago, interest of justice do not lie in interfering with
the impugned order. It was urged that in the present case there was a glaring
infirmity that vital documents were not supplied in inquiry. which
irrevocably prejudiced the applicant and that the failure to furnish the advice
of the UPSC, which recommended the more severe penalty, also vitiated the
final order itself.
8. We have considered the submissions of the parties. It is evident from
the above discussion that the two grounds which persuaded the Tribunal to
set aside the penalty order were the failure to furnish copies of the
documents relied upon, and the failure to furnish copy of the UPSC's advice
recommending more severe, or harsh penalty of dismissal, which vitiated the
penalty and the entire disciplinary proceedings.
9. MD, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727; and S.K. Sharma
(supra) are clear authorities, which declare that the Tribunals and Courts
should not quash disciplinary proceedings in entirety once it is discerned
that there is procedural irregularity in conduct of the proceedings.
10. In the present instance, irregularity - or illegality, as the respondent/
applicant seems to suggest - crept in at the stage when documents relied
upon by the disciplinary authority in the inquiry proceedings were refused.
In the circumstances, the CAT ought to have relegated the parties to that
stage, rather than quashing the proceedings and the consequential penalty
altogether. Likewise, at the culmination of the inquiry process when the
UPSC's advise - which appears to be more adverse to the respondent was
received, that too should have been put to the respondent/ applicant given
the prevailing law (See Union of India & Others Vs. R.P. Singh, Civil
Appeal No.6717/2008 decided by the Supreme Court on 22.05.2014).
11. In the circumstances, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The
following directions are, however, issued:
(i) The inquiry report and the final orders of the disciplinary authority
imposing the penalty of dismissal are set aside.
(ii) The inquiry shall now re-commence after the copies of the documents
relied upon by the employer/ UOI, or such of them as are available,
and furnished to the respondent/ applicant. In case some such
documents were part of the criminal proceedings which led to the
closure report, efforts shall be made to secure and furnish copies
thereof to the respondent/ applicant. This process of furnishing the
documents shall be completed within the next two months, after
which the proceedings shall be initiated and completed as
expeditiously as possible, and preferably within six months.
(iii) Thereafter, the disciplinary authority shall follow the procedure
indicated in B. Karunakar (supra), and also furnish copies of the
UPSC's opinion, wherever obtained to the respondent/ applicant, and
provide adequate opportunity to represent to the petitioner in this
regard.
12. The writ petition is partially allowed in the above terms.
13. Order dasti.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
VIPIN SANGHI, J
SEPTEMBER 26, 2014
B.S. Rohella
