Saurabh Suman Prasad vs Union Of India & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant is working as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Grade-I, in the Employees Provident Fund Organization. He was issued a

charge memo dated 22.08.2019 with certain allegations. In addition to that, the name of the applicant was included in the list of Officers of Doubtful

Integrity (for short, ODI). This OA is filed challenging the charge memo as well as the inclusion of the name of the applicant in the list of ODI.

The applicant contends that the articles of charge are stale in nature and there is hardly any supporting document, to prove the charges. It is also

stated that when it is not even alleged that there is any financial irregularity in the entire episode, there is absolutely no basis to initiate disciplinary

proceedings. As regards the inclusion in the list of ODI, the applicant contends that the respondents have not taken into account, the guidelines issued

in this behalf and that though a representation was made by him for deletion of his name, no orders have been passed therein.

We heard Shri Mrigank Prabhakar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ashish Rai and Shri Brijesh Kumar Tamber, learned counsel for the

respondents.

The applicant claims two reliefs in this OA. The 1st is about challenge to the charge memo dated 22.08.2019 and the 2nd is regarding the inclusion

of his name in the list of ODI.

It is fairly well settled that the occasion for the Tribunal to interfere with a charge memo would arise only when; (a) it is issued by an authority not

vested with the power and (b) when no act of defined misconduct can be perceived, even if the contents of the charge are taken as true.

In the instant case, none of these grounds are pleaded, much less, are established. Though, it is treated as stated that the allegations are stale in

nature, we find that the inquiry into a matter pertaining to the year 2016 through a charge memo issued in 2019 cannot be treated as stale. The other

aspects such as the documents appended to the charge memo not being relevant or adequate, can certainly be urged during the course of inquiry. We

are not inclined to interfere with the charge memo.

Coming to the inclusion of the name of the applicant in the ODI, no specific order is placed before us. However, it is not disputed that there exist

certain parameters, to be taken into account, for inclusion of the name of an officer, in the ODI. The strict compliance thereof is required. Reason is

that the inclusion will have its own adverse impact upon the officer, from many points of view.

We are of the view that since the applicant has submitted a detailed representation, the same needs to be considered without any delay. We,

therefore, dispose of the OA:

(a) declining to interfere in the charge memo dated 22.08.2019; but

(b) directing the respondents to pass orders on the representation made by the applicant with a prayer to delete his name from the list of ODI, within

four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and

(c) the respondents shall endeavor to conclude the disciplinary proceedings as early as possible and not later than 9 months from the date of receipt of

copy of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs.