GS-195496X JE(Civ) Vaibhav Jadhav vs Union Of India And Others

Akil Kureshi, CJ

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 27.11.2017 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of reduction of the petitioner's pay by three stages for a period of four years with future effect. The petitioner has also challenged an appellate order dated 21.06.2018 by which his appeal against the order of disciplinary authority came to be dismissed.

The petitioner was working as Junior Engineer (Civil) with Border Road Task Force (BRTF) at the relevant time. On 20.01.2017 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet which contained one charge as under:

"1. That the said Shri Vaibhav R Jadhav, GS-195496X JE(Civ) of 477 RMPL/112 RCC (GREF)/755 BRTF while posted in 78 RCC/755 BRTF (P) Setuk and functioning as a site incharge during year 2009-12 was responsible for deficiency of contract materials, irregularities in handing/taking over, improper maintenance and updating of site documents due to which loss to the tune of approximately 2.08 crores arises to Govt.

By the above act, the said Shri Vaibhav R Jadhav, GS-195496X JE(Civ) of 477 RMPL/112 RCC (GREF)/755 BRTF has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner which was unbecoming of a Government servant, violating Sub-rule(1)(i), (1)(ii) and (1)(iii) of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."

The inquiry was conducted. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 22.07.2017 holding that the charge was proved. This was supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner did not make any representation against the inquiry officer's report whereupon the disciplinary authority passed the said order imposing punishment. The petitioner challenged the said order before the appellate authority, unsuccessfully. Hence, this petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, I find that before the inquiry officer the petitioner had in clear terms admitted the charge unconditionally. During the preliminary inquiry as well as during the departmental inquiry the petitioner accepted the charge. On 22.07.2017 also the petitioner upon supply of the brief of the presenting officer, had made following declaration:

"I GS-195496X JE (Civ) Vaibhav R Jadhav of 477 RMPL/112 RCC have received the brief given by Shri Sudhansu Tyagi, AE (Civ), Presenting Officer. I agree with the contents of the brief given by presenting officer. Once again I reiterate that I have accepted all charges levelled against me with free and cool mind. Since I have accepted all charges levelled against me, therefore, no defence and state witness to be examined by me. Further, after accepting the charge levelled against me no listed document to be examined by me. I again humbly request with disciplinary authority that a lenient view to be kept about me while deciding punishment about me as I was new to the organization."

It was on account of this unambiguous and unconditional acceptance of the charge that the disciplinary authority had concluded in the report as under:

"12. CONCLUSION

Keeping in view the documentary evidence adduced before the Inquiry Officer and his own conviction by GS-195496X JE (Civ) Vaibhav R Jadhav of 477 RMPL/112 RCC/755 BRTF, the charged officer, during preliminary hearing as well as in regular hearing it has been concluded that the articles of charges No. I, II and III given in Annexure I, II and III to the CE (P) Setuk Memorandum bearing No.11201/Disp/CA 2009-12/78 RCC/85/E1E dt 20 Jan 2017 is proved. It was first appointment of GS-195496X, Vaibhav R Jadhav, JE (Civ) in 78 RCC, therefore a lenient view to be kept while ordering punishment to the charged officer."

In view of this position, I do not find any error in the orders passed by the departmental authorities. The first retraction of the admission of the petitioner came before the appellate authority where he contended that his acceptance of the charge was not free. He was promised that a minor punishment would be imposed if he admitted the charge and, therefore, the punishment would be deleted. The appellate authority examined this aspect but did not accept it and, therefore, dismissed the appeal.

Before this Court also the petitioner has not produced any material to establish his averment that the admission of charge which he had made more than once, was forcibly extracted from him. In a writ petition, such a factual issue in absence of any material produced by the petitioner on a bare word cannot be accepted.

Petition is dismissed. The original file submitted by the department for perusal of the Court may be returned.