AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The applicant joined the Railways as a Medical Officer on 07.07.1987. He was promoted to the post of Senior Divisional Medical Officer. In the year 2006, he was working at Guna in the West Central Railway. On 14.02.2006, an inspection was conducted in his office, on receiving certain complaints that he was issuing fake medical certificates to the employees by accepting illegal gratification. On noticing certain events during the course of the inspection, the disciplinary authority passed an order placing the applicant under suspension on the same day. However, the suspension was revoked on 09.05.2006. Through an order dated 20.07.2007, he was transferred to the Eastern Railway, and a charge-sheet was issued. The applicant submitted his explanation on 20.08.2007, and demanded an opportunity for inspection of the file. The inspection was permitted on 26.09.2007, and thereafter he filed a representation dated 05.10.2007 with a request to supply documents.
The inquiry officer was appointed on 23.10.2007. The inquiry progressed to certain extent, but successive inquiry officers were changed on account of various reasons. This OA is filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 20.07.2007 mainly on the ground that the proceedings were not concluded within a reasonable time.
The applicant contends that nine inquiry officers were changed ever since the inquiry commenced, and he is put to serious hardship. Placing reliance upon certain precedents, he contends that the proceedings deserve to be quashed, lest he is subjected to continuous mental agony and hardship.
The respondents filed counter-affidavit opposing the OA. According to them, the applicant is responsible to a larger extent for the non-conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings by this time. It is stated that at every stage, the applicant raised one objection or the other, and certain inquiry officers had to be changed in view of the allegations of bias made by the applicant.
We heard Shri A. K. Behera with Ms. Meenu Mainee, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri V. S. R. Krishna with Shri Krishan Kant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
Initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant is based on an inspection conducted on 14.02.2006. Initially, he was suspended, and after reinstatement, he was transferred to Eastern Railway. The charge-sheet was issued on 20.07.2007. Proceedings are yet to conclude. Ten years, by any standards, is unreasonably long for conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. In case the delay was exclusively on account of the inaction or lapses on the part of the respondents, necessary relief can certainly be granted to the applicant in one form or the other.
At one stage of the arguments, it was stated that several inquiry officers were changed from time to time, for reasons that cannot be attributed to the applicant, and the same has caused prejudice to him. We required the respondents to file an affidavit in this behalf. An additional affidavit was filed in response to our direction. The following information in a tabular form is furnished, indicating the reasons as to why the inquiry officers had to be changed:
S. No
Name of Inquiry Officers
Date of assumption of Office
Date of relinquishing office
Reason for relinquishing office
1.
Sh. M.R. Das (Retd. CPDE/SER)
09.10.2007
12.06.2008
The IO was in Kolkata while majority documents in Jabalpur and the C.O. in Jhansi
2.
Sh. G.S.Thakur (Retd. SDG/RE/ ALD)
01.08.2008
02.11.2008
Allegation of bias levelled by the CO and the IO not having sufficient staff
3.
Sh. R.N.Dohare (Retd. CPM/WR)
07.07.2009
19.01.2010
Unwillingness due to pending cases and other personal preoccupied commitments.
4.
Sh. V.K.Garg (Ex.-GM)
21.04.2010
30.04.2010
IO withdrew from office as having several inquiries in hand.
5.
Sh. K.K. Aggarwal (Retd. Member (Traffic)/ Railway Board)
18.05.2010
23.10.2012
IO recuses himself citing unavoidable circumstances right after Applicant represents and alleges bias against the IO
6.
Sh. Mahavir Singh (CSTE/ IRPNW)
21.08.2013
18.06.2015
IO recuses from office as retirement is approaching and certain unavoidable circumstances.
7.
Sh. Widyoot K. Pradhan (Retd. CME Central Railways)
04.04.2017
02.08.2017
Had to leave to the U.S. visit his children and no P.O. was appointed.
8.
Sh. A.K. Rawal (Retd. AM (Plg.) Railway Board)
03.09.2017
31.10.2017
Returns the files as the I.O. had three other cases in NCR.
9.
Sh. S.K. Pathak
08.12.2017
Current
The reasons indicated for the replacement of the inquiry officers speak for themselves.
In this OA, the applicant has filed copies of the letters which he had addressed to the inquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority at various stages. A perusal of the same discloses that he did not permit the inquiry to progress at all. A preliminary inquiry was conducted on 22.09.2008 and the proceedings were recorded. In relation to that, the applicant submitted representation dated 03.10.2008, which runs into five closely typed pages. He made almost a clinical analysis of every document, even before the proceedings commenced, and insisted that that the inquiry cannot proceed further unless the documents named by him are examined by the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents. One of the paragraphs reads as under:
"5. GEQD examination of TCM-I RUD No.P-1
During the perusal of the original documents at Jabalpur on 3.10.2008 in presence of the I.O. it could be observed that in the TCM-1 which was prepared on 14.2.2006 in Hotel Jagat, there is sufficient gap in Para No. 5, 2nd line after the word "LOCATED ON" sufficient space has been left over (Marked in yellow highlighter) to make additions at a later date which inter alia leads to the suspicion of making additions in the TCM with regard to the gate at which the purported action was to be taken. The original TCM-1 has also been brought to the notice of the worthy Inquiring authority for taking into cognizance and getting the same examined by GEQD along with the other documents which have been requested for vide CO‟s representation dated 22.9.2008."
The applicant is said to have inspected certain other documents by using magnifying lens, and made the following observations:
"6. GEQD Examination of TCM-3 RUD P-10
Similarly we come to the contents of TCM-3 about which my observation after visual inspection with the help of magnifying lens are as under:
i) The TCM-3 Para No.1 starts from work
"After completion" and concludes after work "prepared" and thereafter full stop has been written.
ii) The ink flow in line No.1 & 2 up to prepared is BOLD and the words "in continuation of TCM-1 & 2." are not bold.
iii) The font of the words "in continuation of TCM-1&2" are not synchronizing much shorter than the first line up to word "prepared" and start of Para No.2.
iv) The words TCM-1 & 2 are out of Left margin and are apparently self evident that these words "in continuation of TCM-1 & 2." have been added at a later date.
v) The placement of full stop "." after word "prepared ." wherein an unsuccessful exercise has been made to merge the full stop with word "in" which is clearly visible as ".in"
vi) It is noteworthy to mention that in the concluding line signed by all, and Two corrections 1 & 2 are made, there is ample space which has been left over due to avoiding the overwriting/overlapping on the signature of
"Mr. Nitin Kasturey" which corroborates that the addition/additions have been made at a later date after the signatures of the members of the TCM-3 affixed their signatures. In face of the above it is requested that before process of the enquiry the veracity of the documents mentioned at para No. 5 and 6 and earlier requested on 22.9.2008 need to be examined by the GEQD to open the cards of conspiracy against the CO wherein additions and alterations have been made in the documents prepared earlier. Against the comments of the PO dated 03.10.2008 it is observed that he is suffering from pro-vigilance meditation as a GEQD examination and the organization is an impartial one where examination will bring the truth before the Inquiry Officer. It is noteworthy to mention that vide order sheet No. 1 dated 22.09.2008 the worthy inquiry authority had already gave his consent to get the GEQD examination of the questioned documents whose veracity is at stake and at the time of commencement of the proceedings on 22.09.2008 no objection was raised by the PO at this belated stage the objection raised by the PO holds no water. The changing of his own decision by the IO is not only jeopardy of natural justice but glaring proof of his being biased and prejudiced in holding the inquiry in a free and frank manner."
One can easily imagine the plight of the inquiry officer, when he faces such a situation at the threshold itself. This is only a sample. Similar representations poured in almost with regular intervals.
On 22.11.2013, the applicant submitted a representation to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, which runs into 19 printed pages. He found fault with every inquiry officer, who functioned up to that date, and the witnesses that were examined by that time. He did not leave anything uncovered. He alleged conspiracy against several officers in the establishment. Even at that stage, he went on complaining that copies of the documents were not furnished to him. The particulars of the documents sought for by him, is another important aspect. He wanted the service particulars of all the officers who participated in the raid; the bills of the hotels in which they stayed; the proceedings as to their entitlement to stay in such accommodations, and so on. Added to this, the proceedings pertaining to his promotion and upgradation were also in progress, and became subject matter of litigation. Successive inquiry officers have requested to be relieved lest they suffered any detriment in the face of the allegations made by the applicant, in one form or the other.
It is true that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held in several cases that continuance of disciplinary proceedings beyond a point would constitute punishment by itself, and if the circumstances so warrant, the proceedings can be terminated on the ground of delay in conclusion. Reference can be made in this behalf to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v N. Radhakrishnan [(1998) 4 SCC 154]. Even while interfering in the case on the facts, their Lordships observed as under:
"19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations."
If the principles enunciated by their Lordships are applied to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that the respondents alone cannot be blamed for the delay, and the circumstances do not warrant termination thereof on the sole ground of delay in conclusion. We are of the view that the proceedings can be required to be concluded within a reasonable time, duly indicating that the applicant shall not cause any hindrance to them in any manner whatever.
We, therefore, dispose of this OA directing the disciplinary authority to conclude the proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. The applicant shall not raise any objection whatever in the course of the inquiry, and he shall reserve the same to be urged before the disciplinary authority. He shall also cooperate with the inquiry officer without causing any hindrance. We make it clear that if the applicant obstructs the proceedings in any manner, the time frame stipulated by us shall cease to be mandatory. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending MAs also stand disposed of.