Rajendra Agarwal Spouse vs Union Of India And Others

Sandeep Mehta, J

The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner (Original Applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench) for assailing the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench rejecting the Original Application filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the charge memorandum dated 23.02.2021 issued to the petitioner by the respondent Department.

The petitioner was recruited on the post of Scientist ‘B’ (Gazetted Group ‘A’) under the DRDO on a temporary basis and was offered appointment vide letter dated 11.03.2004. After serving on the post for a few years, the petitioner was regularized. The petitioner got further promotions which are being mentioned herein below in a tabular form for the sake of ready reference:-

Promotional Post

Date of Promotion

Scientist Grade ‘C’

01.07.2009

Scientist Grade ‘D’

01.07.2009

The petitioner was transferred from DG (ACE), Pune to CCE (R&D) West, Pune. The petitioner has alleged that he was transferred before completing minimum prescribed tenure and that his transfer was vindictive in nature. Thus, he submitted a grievance application which was not responded to.

An interview was held on 10.09.2010 for undertaking the exercise of promotion. However, the petitioner was not found suitable vide result declared on 30.06.2019. The petitioner claims that the process of interview was arbitrary and partisan. Soon after the interviews had been completed and the result was declared denying promotion to the petitioner, he submitted a representation to the Chairman and Secretary, DRDO requesting for constitution of a fresh Assessment Board. While submitting the application for fresh Assessment Board, the petitioner annexed the copy of a video clip which he claims to have been record at the instance of the Technical Officer and the Interview Coordinator. When despite all his efforts, favourable result was not forthcoming, the petitioner filed an Original Application No.1421/2020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench Jodhpur with a pertinent prayer to direct the authorities to hold a fresh assessment for promotions. The said Original Application was disposed of vide order dated 29.09.2020 requiring the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.09.2020. The petitioner has alleged that before his tenure was completed at the place of posting in Pune, he was transferred to Jodhpur vide order dated 22.10.2020. The petitioner claimed that this transfer order was vindictive in nature and was made by way of a punishment because he had mustard courage to question the veracity of the Assessment Board for promotion. Claiming to be a patient of Blood Pressure and Diabetes, the petitioner submitted a Medical Leave application and thereafter, sought extension of leave on medical grounds. The representation dated 04.09.2020 submitted by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 13.01.2021 and soon thereafter, a charge memorandum was served upon him vide forwarding letter dated 10.03.2021. The petitioner filed a reply to the charge memorandum on 24.03.2021. The said memorandum was challenged by the petitioner by filing the subject original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench who rejected the same by order dated 29.04.2022, which is assailed in this writ petition.

Shri K.K. Shah, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently urged that the petitioner never indulged in recording the proceedings of the Assessment Board. The video was recorded at the instance of Assessing Authority. The petitioner was not aware that the recording had been done. Copy of the clip was provided to the petitioner by the officer who had recorded the proceedings and the petitioner submitted the same with his representation in a bonafide manner, without realizing that the recording had been done and provided to him in order to set a trap against him.

We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri K.K. Shah, learned counsel representing the petitioner and, have gone through the impugned order and the charge memorandum issued to the petitioner by the respondent Department.

The allegation levelled in the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner is of recording/getting recorded the interview proceedings undertaken by Interview Assessment Board constituted for the exercise of promotion. It appears that the petitioner apprehended in anticipation that the proceedings of promotion being conducted by the Assessment Board would not lead to a favourable result qua him and that is why, he got proceedings recorded secretly so as to use the same as evidence at a subsequent stage.

Upon a consideration of the totality of facts, we feel that the challenge which has been laid by the petitioner to the impugned charge memorandum is premature. The petitioner would have the opportunity to raise all his defences against the impugned charge memorandum at the appropriate stage before the competent authority. The contention of Shri Shah that the charge memorandum was not issued by an office of competent judisdiction, was extensively considered by the learned Tribunal which decided the same against the petitioner by assigning valid reasons.

In the backdrop of the fact that findings arrived at by the Tribunal are based on an apposite appreciation of the material available on record, we are of the firm view that it is not a fit case warranting interference in the impugned order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench or to quash the charge memorandum served to the petitioner, while exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Hence, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Stay application also stands dismissed.