AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. With their assistance, we have also gone through the pleadings available on record.
Under challenge in the present OA, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, are the findings of the Inquiry Officer supplied to the applicant vide communication dated 02.09.2014 (Annexure A-1), order dated 07.05.2015 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Disciplinary Authority, inflicting a penalty of reduction to three lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with immediate effect, with further direction that the applicant will not earn increments of pay during the said period of reduction and on expiry of the said period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay, and order dated 15.09.2016 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the applicant's statutory appeal has been rejected.
Undisputed facts are that, while working as TGT (English), a departmental proceeding was initiated against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), vide charge memorandum dated 06.02.2013 (Annexure A-4) issued by the Deputy Director of Education, District Central, New Delhi. Vide the said memorandum, the following charges were framed against the applicant:
“ARTICLE-I
Sh. Ishwar Singh, TGT (English), SBV Paharganj while performing the duties of Dy. Supdt for the examination conducted by Delhi University on 14/6/12 at 4.00 P.M. have allowed 08 students to sit and appear in the same examination in separate Room No-305 which was not the part of sitting Plan. The unlawful act committed by Sh. Ishwar Singh, TGT (English), SBV, Paharganj is clear cut violation of CCS (CONDUCT) RULES 1964
ARTICLE-II
Sh. Ishwar Singh, TGT (English), SBV Paharganj while, performing the duties of Dy. Supdt for the examination conducted by Delhi University on 14/6/12 at 4.00 P.M. have allowed mars cheating/ use of unfair means during the examination. The unlawful act committed by Sh. Ishwar Singh, TGT (English) SBV Central Administrative TribunalPaharganj is clear cut violation of CCS(CONDUCT) RULES 1964.”
The allegations levelled against the applicant were denied by him, leading to the appointment of an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer by the respondents. The allegations were further denied by the applicant even during the inquiry proceedings before the Inquiry Officer. However, the Inquiry Officer submitted the impugned report which was supplied to the applicant vide communication dated 02.09.2014. The Inquiry Officer returned the findings that the allegations as ‘proved’.
The applicant submitted his representation against the inquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter passed the impugned penalty order dated 07.05.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred a statutory appeal, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.09.2016 (Annexure A-3). Thus, the present OA.
By way of the present OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
“(a)Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before the Hon'ble Tribunal for the proper adjudication in the matter.
(b)Quash and setting aside the findings of the inquiry officer (Annexure A/1), order dt. 07.05.15 (Annexure A/2) of the disciplinary authority and the order dt. 15.09.16 (Annexure A/3) of the appellate authority with all other consequential benefits restoring the pay of the applicant, arrears of differences with interest etc.
Central Administrative Tribunal(c) Directing the respondents to take the appropriate action against the responsible officials i.e. respondents No. 4 & 5 in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject.
(d)Allowing the OA of the applicants with all other consequential benefits and costs.
(d)Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted to the applicant.”
Though in the OA, various grounds have been taken in support of the claim of the applicant, Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the entire impugned disciplinary inquiry is vitiated, inasmuch as the same has neither been initiated by the competent Disciplinary Authority nor have the impugned orders been passed by the competent Appellate Authority. In support of his argument, he submits that while working as TGT (English), the applicant was holding a Group-B non-gazetted post under the respondents and, under the relevant disciplinary rules, only the Chief Secretary is the competent Disciplinary Authority for the applicant, whereas, admittedly, the charge memorandum dated 06.02.2013 has been issued by the Deputy Director of Education, which is a much junior post in the hierarchy and the impugned orders of penalty have also been passed by incompetent authorities. Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire proceedings deserve to be set aside.
In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a common order/judgment dated 01.12.2023 in OA No. 3096/2018, titled Rajesh Kumar Balara vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Delhi and Ors., along with a batch of three other OAs, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, consisting of one of us (Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)). He submits that the said judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Rajesh Kumar Balara (supra) has attained finality, inasmuch as the same was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court by order/judgment dated 28.12.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 9216/2024. He submits that, to the best of his knowledge, the judgment in the case of Rajesh Kumar Balara (supra) has since been implemented by the respondents. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Anand, learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently opposed the claim of the applicant. He submits that the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated keeping in view the allegations leveled against the applicant and adequate opportunity has been given to the applicant for his defence. He further submits that principles of natural justice have been duly followed while concluding the inquiry and taking the same to its logical conclusion.
Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that during the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has conducted the inquiry in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions and by following the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the allegation of violation of the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules is also misplaced on the part of the applicant. The impugned orders are speaking and reasoned orders and, therefore, interference therein by this Tribunal while exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review is not warranted.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, we have perused the pleadings available on record.
The facts are not in dispute that the applicant was holding a Group-B non-gazetted post while he was proceeded against. It is also not in dispute that, while dealing with the disciplinary inquiry against Rajesh Kumar Balara (supra), the delinquent therein was a Trained Graduate Teacher deployed under the Director of Education, and it has been ruled by the Tribunal that in that case only and only the Chief Secretary, Government of Delhi, is the competent authority. For clarity, we may reproduce paragraph 10 of the common order/judgment dated 01.12.2023 in the case of Rajesh Kumar Balara (supra), as under:
“10.Considering what has been elaborately is stated above, we are of the opinion that the proceedings initiated against the applicants have been done in contravention to the statutory rules. It is the Chief Secretary, and only the Chief Secretary, who was the competent Disciplinary Authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the applicants. Since there contravention of the statutory provisions of the rules is stark, we do not deem it necessary to go into the rest of the merits of the case.”
On being challenged, the aforesaid judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Rajesh Kumar Balara (supra), vide W.P.(C) No. 9216/2024, the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding as under:
“1.The respondents in these writ petitions were working as Trained Graduate Teachers' under the Directorate of Education. They were served with charge sheets under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, proposing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them. The charge sheet was issued by the Deputy Director of Education. An enquiry was conducted, which culminated in the DDE imposing, on the respondents, the punishment of reduction of pay by three stages till retirement. Statutory appeals, preferred against the said decision under Rule 23 of the CCS(CCA) Rules were rejected by the Secretary (Education), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, as the appellate authority. The secretary reduced the punishment to reduction in pay by one stage till retirement. 2. Similar action was taken against Udal Singh, another TGT, working under the DOE. 3. The respondents, along with Udal Singh, instituted Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, challenging the authority of the DDE to act as Disciplinary Authority. 4. The Tribunal, by a common judgment dated 1 December 2023, allowed all the Original Applications, holding the DDE to have been incompetent to act as the DA. 5. The GNCTD has approached this Court against the said decision. 6. WP (C) 15643/20247, which assailed the impugned judgment dated 1 December 2023, qua Udal Singh, already stands dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 14 November 20248. 7. We have heard Mr. N.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He is unable to distinguish the present writ petitions from Udal Singh. 8. Inasmuch as (i) the situation of the respondents in the present petition is identical to that of Udal Singh, (ii) the judgment rendered by the Tribunal was common and (iii) the writ petition filed by the GNCTD against the said judgment, qua Udal Singh, stands dismissed, these writ petitions must suffer a similar fate. 9. Accordingly, following the judgment in Udal Singh, these writ petitions are also dismissed with no order as to costs.”
In light of the aforesaid, the present O.A. deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed with the following directions:
The impugned report of the Inquiry Officer dated communicated vide communication dated 02.09.2014 and the orders dated 07.05.2015 and 15.09.2016 are set aside;
The applicant shall be entitled for all consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and law on the subject;
The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order;
However, in the facts and circumstances, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, if they so decide, however, of course, only by the competent Disciplinary Authority, in accordance with the rules on the subject.
However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.