Simul Datta vs Union of India

Hrishikesh Roy, J. (Oral) - Heard Ms. U Dutta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SC Keyal, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents.

The challenge here is to the order dated 16-12-2009 (Annexure-A) in the Original Application No. 121 of 2006 whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the O.A. wherein the delinquent challenged the orders passed in the disciplinary proceeding.

At the relevant time, the respondent was posted as the Assistant Field Officer(T) in the Special Bureau of Government of India and when he dispatched the representation dated 12-05-1997 (Page-85) by post, disclosing sensitive information relating to the intelligence organization, he was charged with conduct unbecoming of a Government servant employed in the intelligence organization. Accordingly the charge memo dated 02-01-1998 (Annexure-14) was issued under Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ''the CCS Rules''). The article of charge being relevant, are extracted herein below for ready reference:

"Article

That the said Shri Simul Dutta while functioning as AFO (Tele) at SB, Hathikanda during July, 1997 conspicuously mentioned the nature of his duties in the enclosed to his representation dated 17.7.97 and sent it by post to the address of the Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, through JS(Pers.), Hqrs., New Delhi. Disclosing information relating to the functioning of the organisation in this manner being strictly prohibited, the contravened the Departmental Security Instructions, the official secrets Act and the Intelligence Organization (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1985. By this act of omission and commission on his part, Shri Simul Dutta, AFO(T), has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby contravening Rule 3(i) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."

The petitioner was serving in the Special Bureau, which is an intelligence organisation established by the Central Government for the purpose of intelligence or counter-intelligence work.

Under the Intelligence Organization (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ''the 1985 Act''), the members of such organisation are prohibited from communicating with any person on the functioning, structure, personal or organisational affairs. In his representation for exemption from the assigned duties addressed to the Secretary, the petitioner disclosed sensitive information on the functioning of the S.B. and accordingly the charge related to unbecoming conduct of a member of the intelligence organization.

An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charge and the petitioner participated in the inquiry where he reflected his displeasure on the assigned duties, outside the status and/or schedule, attached to the post of Assistant Field Officer of S.B. Sending of the communication dated 12-05-1997 by ordinary post was not however denied. Eventually the Enquiry Officer, in his report, gave a guilty finding against the delinquent, under Rule 3(3) of the CCS Rules read with Official Secret Act, 1923 and the 1985 Act.

When the charge was found to have been established, the disciplinary authority opined that if the contents of the representation dated 12-05-1997 would have reached wrong elements during the postal transit, it would have caused security breach of the organisation and embarrassment for the Government, since sensitive information relating to personnel and functioning of the S.B. was disclosed. This was found to be in breach of the restrictions imposed on members of the intelligence organization. Although the implications were serious, taking a lenient view for a first time offender, the penalty of Censure, under Rule 15 (3) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was imposed on the delinquent by the disciplinary authority, on 02-03-2005 (Annexure-31).

The resultant appeal filed by the delinquent was rejected by the appellate authority on 25-07-2005 (Annexure-33) and the revising authority through his impugned order dated 03-05-2006 (Annexure-36), upheld the penalty and dismissed the revision.

The orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings were put to challenge through the Original Application No. 121/2006 filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal''s Act, 1995. In support of his challenge, the delinquent contended that he was recruited as Assistant Field Officer and therefore, he cannot be compelled to do any other task except those related to the telecommunication cadre. He also contended that he was punished twice for the same lapse, as earlier he was punished for dereliction of duty and was given the punishment of dies non, for the given period.

On the other hand, the respondents contended that the delinquent was given lenient punishment of ''Censure'' despite the serious implication of the breach committed by him. The employer also contended that other penalty was not related to this charge having security implication for the S.B. It was further contended that judicial review in a disciplinary proceeding would be limited to assessing the fairness of the inquiry and there cannot be re-appreciation of the evidence.

The learned Tribunal referred to the contents of the offending representation dispatched through normal postal channel. In his communication, the delinquent conspicuously mentioned the exact nature of duties and the names of personnel posted in the organisation although such information are sensitive information for S.B. Thus, it was observed that the Inquiry Officer rightly considered the contents of the representation dated 12-05-1997 and reached a bona fide conclusion, on the unbecoming conduct of the S.B. officer. The Tribunal took the view that appropriate reasons are disclosed in the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority and that adequate evidence was available to establish the delinquent''s unbecoming conduct. Thus, applying the principle of preponderance of probability on the basis of materials available on record and noticing that the proceeding before the Tribunal has no relation to the issue leading to the dies non penalty, intervention with the disciplinary proceeding was not found justified. The Tribunal found that procedural formalities were fair and there is no breach of the principles of natural justice as the delinquent was accorded all reasonable opportunities in the proceeding. Thus, the O.A. was found devoid of merit and the same was dismissed.

The power of judicial review in a disciplinary proceeding is intended to examine the manner in which the decision is made and to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment. Moreover, when conclusions are supported by relevant materials, it is competent for the disciplinary authority to hold the delinquent guilty of the charge. In a challenge to disciplinary proceeding, the Tribunal does not act as an appellate authority or re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at his own independent conclusions.

We find from the discussion made by the learned Tribunal that a proper scrutiny of the disciplinary proceeding was made and satisfaction was reached on adherence to fair norms with due opportunity to the delinquent and all decisions were supported by good reasons.

In the above facts, we hold that the refusal of the Tribunal to interfere with the penalty is reasonable. Therefore, we see no scope to entertain this challenge by a delinquent, who, in fact, was treated leniently by the disciplinary authority despite the serious implication of his irresponsible conduct. Consequently, this case is found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their respective cost.