Union Of India vs Ravindranath Narendranath ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5700 Del

$~15
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Date of Decision:31st August, 2016.
+      W.P.(C) 5926/2016 & CM No. 24430/2016
       UNION OF INDIA                                 ..... Petitioner
                Through :       Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI with
                                Mr.Minmansk Bhardwaj, Advocate.

                          Versus

       RAVINDRANATH NARENDRANATH PADUKONE
                                        .... Respondent

Through : Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Mr. Arjun Gadhoke, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21st February, 2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal') in the OA No.623/2013 and the order dated 6th January, 2016 in the Review Application No.221/2015, whereby the OA filed by the respondent and the review application filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the Tribunal and extension of time to complete the enquiry proceedings was declined.

2. The necessary facts, which are required to be noticed for disposal of the present writ petition, are that the respondent was working as Senior Deputy Director General, Telecom Engineering Centre, Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi. The respondent had superannuated on 31/12/2011. Consequently, respondent was served with the charge memo dated 3.9.2012 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA)

Rules, 1965 for allegedly exerting undue pressure for examination of test reports, approving the proposal for issuance of "Certificate of Approval" with deviations/relaxations for such important and sensitive products like lawful intercept Monitoring System for IST against TET standards. The following articles of charge were framed:-

Article-I

That, Shri R. N. Padukone, the then Sr. DDg, TEC, New Delhi approved on 18.10.2008 the case for issue of Certificate of Approval(COA) to M/s Span Technologies for important & sensitive product like Lawful Intercept Monitoring System for ISP against TEC standard SD/IMC-01/01 MAR 2004 in utter violation of the provisions contained in procedure for grant of COA. In draft COA put up by NRC, TEC Standard no. SD/IMC-01/01 MAR 2004 was mentioned as specification whereas as per clause 3.2 of the Approval Procedure No.005 TAP TEC, MAY 1996 there was no provision for issue of COA against a TEC standard and the same can only be issued against applicants own specifications.

Thus, by the above act of approving the aforesaid proposal for issue of COA for such important & sensitive product like Lawful Intercept Monitoring System for ISP against TEC Standard, the said Shri R. N. Padukone committed gross misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a public servant and thereby contravened provisions of Rule 3 (1)

(i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article-II

That, Shri R. N. Padukone, the then Sr. DDG, TEC, New Delhi approved on 18.10.2008 the case for issue of Certificate of Approval

(COA) to M/s Span Technologies for important & sensitive product like Lawful Intercept Monitoring System for ISP against TEC standard SD/IMC-01/01 MAR 2004 with deviations/relaxations, whereas as per clause 11.6 of Approval Procedure No.005 TAP TEC, relaxation can be given in the case related to GR/SR only and there is no provision for granting relaxations against IR/applicants own specification/TEC standard.

Thus, by the above act of approving the aforesaid proposal for issue of COA with deviations/relaxations for such important & sensitive produce like Lawful Intercept Monitoring System for ISP against TEC Standard, the said Shri R. N. Padukone committed gross misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a pubic servant and thereby contravened provisions of Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article-III

That, Shri R. N. Padukone, the then Sr. DDG, TEC, exerted undue pressure and did not give requisite/adequate time to concerned SA Division officials to examine the test reports including deviations therein and for offering their comments in the case. Test reports including deviations were forwarded by then ADG (T&C) to SA Division on 16.102.008 for examination and comments. However, the file was recalled on directions of Sr. DDG on Saturday the 18th October, 2008 and no comments could be/were offered by SA Division due to non availability of staff and paucity of time. After withdrawing the case file, the same was put up by E.O. in the office of the Sr. DDG to Shri Padukone and case for issue of COA was approved by Sr.

DDG on 18.10.2008 and COA was issued on 20.10.2008. This undue haste on the part of Shri Padukone in clearing/approving the case for issue of COA is also evident from the facts stated by DDG (SA) in his reply dated 10.11.2008 to Shri Padukone DO Letter dated 04.11.2008 wherein the issue of deviations in the test results to be technically examined has been highlighted.

3. The respondent challenged the aforesaid charge memo before the Tribunal in OA No.3667/2012. The said OA was disposed of vide order dated 2nd November, 2012 with the direction to the respondent to file a detailed representation in respect of charge memo within two weeks along with the supporting documents, the same would be examined and disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation by a reasoned order. The respondent, thereafter, filed the representation on 15th November, 2012 for dropping of the charges on various grounds. The disciplinary authority, after considering the objections raised by a reasoned order, rejected the aforesaid representation.

4. Thereafter, respondent approached the Tribunal by filing the OA No.623/2014. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 21st February, 2013, dismissed the OA. However, directions were issued to the petitioner to conclude the departmental proceedings expeditiously, preferably within four months. After that the petitioner filed a M.A. No.421/2015, wherein the petitioner sought extension of time to complete the departmental inquiry proceedings. The Tribunal vide order dated 29th April, 2015 rejected the request for extension of time to complete the departmental inquiry proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a review application against the order dated 29th

April, 2015 in MA No. 421/2015, which was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 6th January, 2016. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 6th January, 2016 passed by the Tribunal in RA No. 221/2015, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

5. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay caused was on account of the fact that after the inquiry was concluded, the matter was placed before the UPSC to render an opinion. The Rule 14(5)(a) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 had not been complied with. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer had superannuated and a fresh Inquiry officer had been appointed. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Tribunal was under an incorrect impression that a de nova inquiry was to commence, whereas, no such prayer was made by the petitioner before the Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that appointment of a fresh Inquiry Officer at this stage would be meaningless as the Inquiry Officer has become functus officio.

7. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no fresh charge memo has been issued to the respondent and hence there is no question of de-novo inquiry, however an enquiry officer has been appointed in case for any reason the matter is remanded back to him and the Enquiry Officer would only proceed from the stage where the earlier enquiry officer had left the proceedings.

8. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the respondent is a retired person and he is unnecessarily being harassed and in case time is to be extended, it should be subject to the payment of costs and in case and it should be clarified that the time is extended form the stage at which, the proceedings are pending as of now.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent and also perused the impugned order dated 21/02/2013 in OA No. 623/2013 and the order dated 06/01/2016 in R.A No.221/2015.

10. We notice that on three occasions, the Tribunal has rejected the request of the petitioner to extend the time.

11. We find force in the submissions that the respondent had retired but continues to face the inquiry proceedings.

12. To meet ends of justice, we grant extension of two months from today as prayed by the petitioner, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent and the time is extended form the stage at which the proceedings are pending as of now

13. The writ petition stands accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

CM No. 24430/2016(stay)

In view of the order passed in the writ petition, this application has been rendered infructuous and the same is disposed of as such.

G.S.SISTANI (JUDGE)

I.S. MEHTA (JUDGE) AUGUST 31, 2016 j