AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
The applicant has filed this Original Application (OA) seeking the following reliefs:-
"In view of the circumstance, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon"ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the order of punishment vide letter No.GTK/AI(T) CH.104/2013/1380 dated 18.03.2013 passed by the respondent no.3 and further consequently setting aside/quash the order dated 21.06.2013 vide letter no.GTK/AI(T)/Appeal/2013/65 passed by the respondent no.2, thereby rejecting the appeal of the applicant, in the facts and circumstances of the matter and in the interest of justice.
Any other or further order/relief(s), which this Hon"ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case, may also be passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondents."
The brief facts of the case are that vide Office Order bearing No.GTK/AI(T)/CH-104/2012/1475 dated 20.07.2012, the Depot Manager, DTC, GT, Kamal Depot, Delhi, respondent no.3, informed the applicant that during the course of preventive check carried by the Vigilance Team H.Q. on 14.07.2012 at GTK Depot from 20:15 hours, he was found consuming liquor in the Depot Canteen and due to the said irregularities, he was put under suspension w.e.f. 21.07.2012 pending enquiry into the case. Thereafter on 27.07.2012, he was served with a charge sheet with a direction to submit his explanation within a period of ten days as to why he should not be proceeded against in terms of the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Delhi Transport Authority (Condition of Appointment and Service) Regulation 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation 1952).
It is further contended that the applicant submitted his reply on 27.07.2012 wherein he vehemently denied to have consumed liquor in the Depot Canteen on the alleged date of preventive checking. He was informed vide order dated 31.07.2012, that he would have to face inquiry as his reply was not found satisfactory and further that he should report to schedule GTKR Depot for his further duties as he had been released from suspension w.e.f. 01.08.2012 pending enquiry of the disciplinary authority. The inquiry officer submitted its report on the basis of the documents and the evidences available on record and held the charge leveled against the applicant as "proved" and as such, the applicant was guilty. Being satisfied with the inquiry report, the respondent no.3, vide order dated 12.03.2013, , while proposing the punishment of stoppage of next due one increment in salary with cumulative effect, also directed the applicant to submit his representation, if any, within 72 hours to show cause as to why such punishment be not imposed upon him. Accordingly, the applicant submitted his representation on 15.03.2013. The order of punishment was confirmed vide order dated 18.03.2013. Thereagainst, the applicant preferred an appeal before the respondent no.2 on 16.04.2013. However, the respondent no.2 issued a letter dated 16.05.2013, informing him that if you have anything to represent in connection of your grading entered in ACR for the year 2012-13, you should do so through the officer under whom you are directly working within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this memo. He was directed to improve and overcome those shortcomings. The applicant was also directed to appear before the respondent no.2 on 30.05.2013 for personal hearing relating to his appeal. Further, the respondent no.3, vide letter dated 21.06.2013, informed the applicant that his appeal against the punishment, after thorough consideration, has been rejected by the respondent no.2. As a result thereof, the applicant preferred a second appeal to respondent no.1 against the order of punishment. The respondent no.3 issued a letter dated 04.09.2013 informing the applicant that as his appeal had ready been rejected on 13.06.2013, there was no provision for second appeal and as such, the same could not be entertained. Hence, the applicant has filed the present OA.
In reply to the OA, the respondents have submitted that the scope of judicial review is very limited. The court cannot go into the correctness of the truth of the charges, It cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority an assume the role of the appellate authority. There are no allegations of malafides nor the counsel for the applicant urged perversity.
It is pleaded in reply that the applicant was appointed as daily wages conductor w.e.f. 15.02.1985 and the vigilance team of DTC headquarters carried preventive checking at GTKR Depot and during the course of checking, the applicant was found consuming liquor in the canteen of this depot. The report of the preventive checking received in this Depot vide letter dated 18.07.2012 containing the order that the applicant be placed under suspension and disciplinary action be taken against him. Consequent upon the said report of the checking team of vigilance deptt. Headquarters duly approved by CMD, the applicant was placed under suspension w.e.f. 21.07.2012 vide letter dated 20.07.2012. The applicant was issued charge sheet vide order dated 27.07.2012 containing the charges of "Found Consuming Liquor in the Depot Canteen on 14.07.2012 at 20.15 hrs. The reply to the charge-sheet was received on 27.07.2012 wherein the applicant had denied the charges. Therefore, this case was entrusted to inquiry officer and sent to her.
The applicant was released from suspension w.e.f. 01.08.2012 after conducting detailed inquiry and submitted her findings on 04.03.2013 wherein the applicant was declared at fault. As such the applicant is not entitled to relief sought in the present OA.
The respondents, in reply to Ground 5G of the OA, submits there is no violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21. Even it is the case where the respondents have found the applicant guilty of Rule 22(b) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 and proceeded to impose penalty upon the applicant inter alia on this premise.
The short controversy involved in this OA is whether the inquiry has been conducted in a fair and transparent manner or not.
It is seen from the inquiry proceedings that the inquiry officer had thoroughly examined the witnesses, namely, Sh. Arvind Kumar, Foreman on 14.09.2012, Sh. Mangtu Ram, ATI on 20.11.2012, Sh. Dinesh Chaudhary, Canteen Contractor on 03.01.2013 and Mr. Devraj, Tyreman, Security Guard while proposing penalty of stoppage of next due one increment in salary with cumulative effect. Thus, the inquiry officer had held detailed inquiry and the plea of the applicant that the statements of aforesaid witnesses were totally ignored by the inquiry officer has no force.
A perusal of the record clearly reveals that the applicant himself admitted that he is an alcoholic and that is why doctor has advised him to abstain himself from it. Thus, respondents have proceeded to impose penalty against the applicant under the provisions of Rule 22(b) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which read as under:-
"22. CONSUMPTION OF INTOXICATING DRINKS AND DRUGS:
A Government servant shall -
(a) strictly abide by any law relating to intoxicating drinks or drugs in force in any area in which he may happen to be for the time being;
(b) not be under the influence of any intoxicating drink or drug during the course of his duty and shall also take due care that the performance of his duties at any time is not affected in any way by the influence of such drink or drug;
(bb) refrain from consuming any intoxicating drink or drug in a public place;
(c) not appear in a public place in a state of intoxication;
(d) not use any intoxicating drink or drug to excess."
We have also perused the order of the disciplinary authority dated 20.07.2012 and found that this order contains all the details of the issue, clear findings and a reasoned order on this basis of which the disciplinary authority has imposed the penalty of punishment of stoppage of next due one increment in salary with cumulative effect. It is noted that before rejecting the appeal of the applicant, the respondent no.2 has also given him an opportunity of personal hearing on 30.05.2013. As such, we do not find any lacuna or legal infirmity in the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities and the same cannot be interfered with by this Tribunal in view of law laid down by Hon"ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Others (2009) 15 SCC 620.
In view of the facts of the case and decision in the inquiry proceedings, it is clear that the proceedings have been carried out as per rules and the punishment has been given accordingly. There is no defect in the actions carried out in the disciplinary proceedings and the applicant has been given penalty after following all due procedures and affording an opportunity of hearing him on 30.05.2013.
No other point, worth consideration, has been urged or pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
In the light of the aforesaid reasons and thus seen from any angle, there is no merit and hence the OA deserves to be and is hereby dismissed as such in the obtaining circumstances of the case. No costs.