Delhi High Court
Vijay Prakash vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 January, 2017
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 391/2017 & CM 1819/2017
Date of Decision : 18th January, 2017
VIJAY PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Mamta Chandra, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
1. Vijay Prakash, in this writ petition, impugns the order dated 20.7.2016
passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal
('Tribunal' for short), New Delhi, whereby his OA, challenging the penalty
of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated
27.4.2011, affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.10.2011
and the Revisional Authority vide order dated 28.6.2012, has been rejected.
2. The contention is that the factual findings are perverse and incorrect
and the charges were never established and proved as most of the
prosecution witnesses did not make affirmative statements, implicating the
petitioner. The version given by the defence witnesses has not been
appreciated and given adequate notice.
3. The petitioner was served with the charge/memorandum dated
18.3.2009/6.4.2009 on the following article of charge:
"Article I
That while functioning as Mail Peon, Foreign Post, New
Delhi- 110002, Shri Vijay Prakash was allegedly found to have
been lying along with an outsider woman in altogether naked
condition and indulging in sex with each other in a
compromising position on 06.01.2009 at about 17.30 hours in
the recreation club hall 3 OA No.73/2013 situated adjacent to
the departmental canteen at the 3rd floor of Foreign (sic) Post
building, New Delhi-110002.
Thus by the above act, the said Shri Vijay Prakash is alleged to
have committed a grossly immoral act which is subversive of
discipline and office decorum and amounts to an act of
misconduct listed in Govt. of India Decision No.23 below Rule
3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (Swamy's Compilation of CCS
(Conduct) Rules. Thirty Seven Edition).
By doing so, the said Shri Vijay Prakash is further alleged to
have acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government
servant thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 3(1)(iii) of
CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964"
4. The Disciplinary Authority, relying upon the Inquiry Report, held that
the charges were proved, and vide order dated 27.4.2011, penalty of
dismissal from service was imposed. As noticed above, the Appellate and
the Revisional Authority have affirmed the said factual findings.
5. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has minutely examined the facts
and has negated the challenge to the factual findings recorded by the
authorities, holding that the charges were proved beyond doubt. Pertinently,
the petitioner had made an admission in writing immediately after the date
of occurrence, on 6.1.2009. Later on, the petitioner had claimed that the
woman was distantly related to him. He did not dispute the presence of the
said woman on the date of occurrence in the office. The Inquiry Report also
refers to the statement of witnesses and, in particular, to the
contemporaneous documents prepared at that spot.
6. We do not find that the factual findings recorded in the Inquiry report,
affirmed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, the Revisional
Authority and the Tribunal, are perverse or unreasonable.
7. No other contention is urged or argued on behalf of the petitioner.
8. The petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. CM 1819/2017 is
also dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
JANUARY 18, 2017
tp
