AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicant, while he was working as Manager/PD in Property Development Cell in DMRC. The penalty of censure was imposed on him vide
order No. DMRC/Estt./PF/SD/6116/2014 dated 18.09.2014. He was charge sheeted on 21.02.2014 under Rule 44 of the DMRC Conduct, Discipline
and Appeal Rules. The charges levelled against him were pertaining to issuing identity cards to the staff of M/s. e.g. Communications Pvt. Ltd., a train
Advertisement Contractor, which enabled the contractor‟s staff to access Shastri Park Depot which housed 25 trains thereby facilitating the
advertisements in the trains when there was no contract in place for the period 04.04.2011 to 07.09.2011. Further, it was alleged that before issue of
identity cards, the applicant failed to ensure the validity of the contract period of the agency and by act of this there could have been loss of Rs.1.24
crores to the DMRC if the same had not been pointed out by Vigilance Department of DMRC.
It was found by the disciplinary authority that for the aforesaid period, the PD Cell had issued a letter on various dates, which could not be ascribed
to the charged officer so he could not be held responsible to have allowed the contractor to carry on work in this period based on identity card issued
to the employees. However, regarding ensuring of validity of the contract period of the agency, the disciplinary authority found that the charged officer
could not submit any convincing proof to show that he was not part of the contract in question and as per the available records, he was associated
with the management of this contract since its inception which was subsequently taken over by Shri R. A. Khan. Therefore, the charged officer‟s
plea that he could not have ensured validity of the contract period as the contract was not accepted at face value by the Disciplinary Authority. The
Disciplinary Authority while finding that the charges against the CO was not substantially established, however, held that the CO was erred in
ensuring proper supervision and monitoring of his work to the extent that the validity of contract in question could have been checked by him.
Therefore, he was imposed punishment of censure.
The applicant appealed against the said penalty which appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on 06.01.2015.
The applicant has prayed for quashing the impugned orders dated 18.09.2014 and 06.01.2015.
The applicant has stated that he was looking after Line 3 & 4 and Line 1 was looked after by Mr. R. A. Khan who took over the charge from Mr.
Gabdu Ram Choudhary. He has filed Annexure A/2 which is a charge handing over report dated 11.10.2010 wherein charge of Manager/PD Line 1
was handed over by Mr. G. R. Gabdu and taken over by Mr. R. A. Khan. He has stated that Shastri Park Depot was under Line 1 which was looked
after by Mr. R. A. Khan from 11.10.2010 onwards, before which, Mr. Gabdoo R. Chaudhary was looking after it. Therefore, he has contended that
the said contract was completely dealt with by Mr. R. A. Khan and was dated 07.08.2009, well before the applicant joined as Manager/PD on
14.09.2010. He has averred that he could not be held responsible for the management of the contract. He stated that the disciplinary authority has
erred in holding that the applicant was associated with management of the contract since its inception since the contract was of 2009 and he joined
PD Cell as Manager/PD only on 14.09.2010.
He has also stated that Identity Cards were issued by the applicant on 26.06.2011 after work permission was issued by Mr. R. A. Khan, the then
Manager/PD on various dates. He has filed copies of work permission given on 31.03.2011, 29.04.2011, 01.06.2011 and 29.06.2011 at Annexure A/6
and work permission dated 28.07.2011 on Annexure A/7.
In any case, the disciplinary authority has also held that the CO (applicant in this O.A) cannot be held primarily responsible for allowing contractor
to carry on work for the period 04.04.2011 to 07.09.2011 based on identity cards issued to its employees.
The respondents have denied the claims of the applicant. They have admitted that the license tenure for the said agreement was from 19.08.2009 to
18.08.2002 but the license agreement was surrendered by the licensee and the actual license ended on 03.04.2011. Despite the contract having ended,
the applicant continued to issue identity cards to the employees of the advertisement contract M/s. e.g Communications Pvt. Ltd., However, they have
admitted that the contract of the train advertisement for Line 1 was handled by Mr. R. A. Khan, for Line 2 by Mr. Praveen Kumar and for Line 3 by
the applicant Mr. Sankalp Devendra. They have reiterated that the applicant issued identity cards to give access to Shastri Park Depot for the period
when the contract was no longer in place i.e., 04.04.2011 to 07.09.2011. They have stated that the applicant could have verified the contract period
before issuing identity cards. But, they have admitted that there are no guidelines for issuance of identity cards to the staff of the contractor in
Procedure Order issued vide order No. DMRC/DO/o & M/LM/Rev/08/10 dated 27.08.2010(Annexure R/2). The said procedure order is regarding
control and monitoring of contracts but does not talk about issuance of identity cards. It thus clearly states that among others, the concerned Manager,
PD is responsible for various actions related to this contract. They have further stated that full opportunity was given as per the DMRC Conduct,
Discipline and Appeal Rules.
Heard Mr. Manu Monga, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. V. S. R. Krishna, learned counsel for respondents.
As far as the first charge is concerned, i.e. issuing permission letters on various dates, the CO has not been held responsible for allowing the
contractor to carry on work. Regarding the second charge of failing to ensure the validity of the contract period of the Agency, the disciplinary
authority has held that the applicant/charged officer could not submit any convincing proof to show that he was not part of the contract in question. In
fact as per available records the disciplinary authority held as under :-
“Regarding ensuring of validity of the contract period of the agency, the CO has mentioned in his reply to the charge sheet that he cannot be held
responsible for the same as he was not looking after the management of this contract. However, the CO could not submit any convincing proof to
show that he was not part of the contract in question. In fact, as per the available records, he was associated with the management of this contract
since its inception which was subsequently taken over by Shri R. A. Khan, Manager/PD. Hence, the CO‟s plea that he could not ensure validity of
the contract period as the contract was not looked after by him, cannot be accepted at face value.â€
The applicant has filed handing over/taking over charge of Line 1 which clearly shows that Mr. Gabdu Ram Choudhary Manager/PD Line 1
handed over charge on 11.10.2010 to Mr. R. A. Khan. The respondents have not filed any document to show that the applicant was looking after Line
1 though, it has been stated in the punishment order that the Manager of this contract was taken over by Mr. R. A. Khan from the applicant. Further,
it has been admitted that the applicant joined as Manager/PD on 14.09.2010 whereas the contract with M/s. e.g. Communications Pvt. Ltd., was
entered into on 07.08.2009, and the applicant has stated that he could not be associated with the Management of this contract since itsinception. In the
light of the aforesaid it has not been established that the applicant was responsible for management of the said contract.
At the end of the punishment order the disciplinary authority has held as following :-
“In view of above, it is found that the charges levelled against the CO have not been substantially established. However, the CO had erred in
ensuring proper supervision and monitoring of his work to the extent that the validity of the contract in question could have been checked by him.
Taking these into account and to meet the ends of justice, I impose the punishment of „Censure‟ on Shri Sankalp Devendra, DGM/Operation-IV
(CO).â€
It is strange that when as per above para the disciplinary authority has found that the charges levelled against the applicant/charged officer have
not been substantially established yet at the same time they have found him erring in ascertaining proper monitoring of his work to the extent that the
validity of the contract could have been checked by him, when it has come out that the said contract was not at all seen by the applicant, but by Mr.
R. A. Khan, Manager/PD then, the responsibility would be of Mr. R. A. Khan and not that of the applicant. Nowhere has it been contended that the
applicant had supervisory powers over Mr. R. A. Khan who appears to be of equivalent rank. Therefore, I am of the view that imposing punishment
of censure on the applicant is not justified.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 18.09.2014 and 06.01.2015 are quashed and set aside. The O.A is allowed. No order as to
costs.