Sanjay Bhatia vs Union of India and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh on 09.10.2013 (for short ''the Tribunal'') whereby an original application filed by the petitioner challenging his dismissal from service vide order dated 05.10.2010 remained unsuccessful. The petitioner was appointed to Indian Police Services and allocated to Haryana State where he joined in August, 1986. Soon after, on 30.10.1986, an FIR was registered against the petitioner that petitioner was Rajput Bhatia by caste which is a General category whereas he has submitted a Scheduled Caste certificate claiming him to be a Scheduled Caste belonging to ''Adi-dharmi'' category. On the basis of such FIR, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner which led to conviction of the petitioner by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 06.07.2005 for an offence u/s 420 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 100 days and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of which to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. It may be noticed that an appeal against the conviction is pending before Delhi High Court.

Since the induction of petitioner was based upon fraudulent facts leading to conviction, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice as to why penalty of dismissal from service in terms of Rule 14(i) of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 (for short ''the Rules'') be not imposed upon him. After considering the reply filed, the order of dismissal as mentioned above was passed. An original application challenging the order of dismissal has remained unsuccessful Still aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceeding for inflicting any major penalty in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules could be initiated only by the State Government as the petitioner was allocated to the State of Haryana, whereas the proceedings have been initiated against him by Central Government. The order of dismissal has been passed finding an act of fraud in obtaining appointment on the basis of false caste certificate. Therefore, such initiation of proceedings is violative of Rule 7 of the Rules.

The learned Tribunal has referred to proviso 1-B inserted vide notification dated 05.07.1975 giving overriding effect to the provisions as contained in Sub-rule (1) so as to permit the Central Government to decide that which is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings, in case such dispute arises. It is in terms of the said proviso, the Tribunal found that the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner.

We find that reliance of the petitioner on Rule 7 of the Rules is misconceived. The order of dismissal has been passed in terms of Rule 14 of the Rules. Disciplinary authority is competent to impose punishment if any penalty is imposed upon a member of the Service which led to his conviction on the criminal charge. The disciplinary authority in the case of the petitioner is Central Government. Therefore, reliance of the petitioner on Rule 7 of the Rules is not tenable as the action has been taken against him under Rule 14. Even under Rule 7, the Central Government is the competent authority in terms of proviso 1-B introduced vide notification dated 05.07.1975. We do not find any merit in the present writ petition.

Dismissed.