Sri Nabajit Das vs The Union Of India & Ors.

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The applicant has filed the instant O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

Sri M. Chanda, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that while the applicant working as Assistant Engineer Grade-I Frontier HQ, Siliguri, a charge sheet dated 10.02.2016 under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued against him with 6 Article of charges for alleged misconduct committed by him while posted as Assistant Engineer, Frontier Headquarters, SSB, Siliguri in the year 2011 without prior initiation of disciplinary proceedings. As per the learned counsel, no decision has been taken by the DA for issue of charge sheet and there has been no initiation of disciplinary proceedings, therefore, the impugned charge sheet is violative of Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and DOPT OM dated 29.11.2012 and 08.12.2017.

Sri Chanda has pleaded that Director General, SSB is the appointing authority of the applicant and Disciplinary Authority in the case of the applicant. But in the instant case, the Charge Memorandum dated 10.02.2016 has been issued by Assistant Director (Per-I), who is not the Disciplinary Authority and also has no authority for issuing the Charge Memorandum against the applicant. The applicant is a Group B employee but in the Charge Memorandum of the applicant at page 2, it has been mentioned that “By order and in the name of the President.”

Sri Chanda has further pleaded that the applicant submitted his Defence Statement on 11.03.2016 and denied all the charges alleged against him (Annexure-A/3). Thereafter, Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officers were appointed by Assistant Director (Pers-I) by orders dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure-A/4). A joint departmental enquiry was held against Sri R. K. Dutta, the then ‘Executive Engineer of Sector Headquarters, Ranidanga, who was entrusted to look after the additional charge of Frontier Hqrs. Siliguri against whom also similar charge sheet was issued with the applicant. The Inquiring Authority submitted his Inquiry Report dated 18.09.2019 and held all the Article of charge against the applicant ‘to be not proved’ (Annexure-A/7). However, the Director General, SSB issued Disagreement Note dated 31.07.2020 against the Inquiry Report (Annexure-A/2). Applicant submitted his representation dated 05.11.2021 against the Inquiry Report and Disagreement Note vide letter dated 08.11.2021 (Annexure-A/9).

Sri Chanda has also pleaded that there is severe delay and lapses on the part of the respondents throughout the entire disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. According to Sri Chanda, the Charge Memo in the case of the applicant has been issued on 10.02.2016 and the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer have been appointed on 06.09.2016 and Inquiry Report dated 18.09.2019 was submitted to the applicant on 22.10.2021 i.e. after a lapse of over 5 years and 1 month. The Inquiry Report dated 18.09.2019 whereby all the charges have been held to be not proved had been sent to the applicant on 22.10.2021. Though Inquiry Report was prepared on 18.09.2019 but no final decision on the Inquiry Report has been communicated to the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority till date. Further, Charge Memo was issued to the applicant on 10.02.2016 and the applicant submitted his reply against the Disagreement Note on 05.11.2021 but thereafter, nothing has been communicated to the applicant. In the meantime, DPC was held on 25.10.2018 and 8 Assistant Engineers were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in PB-3, RS. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay Rs. 6600/- (pre-revised) revised to level-11 in the pay matrix. However the name of the applicant has been kept in ‘Sealed Cover’ for the vacancy year 2017-18 due to pending Departmental Enquiry. Further the junior most officers to the rank of Executive Engineer has been stated to be on ‘adhoc’ basis till finalisation of the ‘sealed cover’ or subsequent regular vacancy in the grade arises, whichever is earlier. The employees at Sl nos. 15 to 8 of the promotion order dated 05.12.2018 are juniors of the applicant in the post of Assistant Engineer as ‘evident from the seniority list as on 01.04.2017 circulated by Memorandum dated 09.05.2017 (Annexure-A/15 & A/16 respectively). Thereafter, by another order dated 19.02.2021, further 3 juniors of the applicant have been promoted from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer against the vacancy year 2018-19 (up to 31.12.2018) & 2019. The names of the said 3 juniors appear at Sl. No. 11, 12 and 13 below the applicant at S1. no. 6 of the said seniority list as on ‘01.04.2017. In the said order dated 19.02.2021, also it has been mentioned that the recommendation of the DPC in respect of the applicant for the vacancy year 2018-19 (up to 31.12.2018) & 2019 is in ‘Sealed Cover’ due to pending departmental enquiry (Annexure-A/17). Due to the delay in completion of the disciplinary proceedings and failure to pass a final order in respect thereof for over 7 years, the applicant has been denied promotion to the post of Executive Engineer on several occasion in hostile discrimination to his juniors who-have been promoted by orders dated 05.12.2013 and 19.02.2021. Being aggrieved, applicant submitted representations dated 11.03.2021 and 2.6.04.2021 addressed to the Director General, SSB through proper channel requesting for expediting the Departmental enquiry. The said representations have been forwarded by the Assistant Commandant (Min), SHQ SSB Rangiya to the Commandant Frontier Hqr SSB Guwahati through letter dated 30.04.2021. But the same have not yet been considered.

Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the following case rulings in support of his contentions:

Judgment and order dated 08.08.2005 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. Md. T.N. Housing Board (2005) 6 SCC 636

Judgment and order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the CAT, Guwahati Bench in the case of Sri Anupam Nath -vs- Union of India & Others.

Judgment and order dated November 2017 passed by the CAT, Guwahati Bench in the case of Shri Mohd. Nasarullah Khan-vs- Union of India & Others.

Judgment and order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs Mohd. Nasarullah Khan.

Judgment and order dated 11.06.2026 passed by the CAT Guwahati Bench in the case of Tapas Kumar Chakraborty-vs- Union of India & anr.

Judgment and order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the CAT Guwahati Bench in the case of Anupam Nath -vs- Union of India & anr.

Sri A. Kundu, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents has submitted that a Departmental Enquiry proceeding against Shri R. K. Dutta, the then Executive Engineer, Group-A Gazetted and Shri Nabajit Das, Assistant Engineer (Grade-I) Group-B Gazetted (applicant) have been initiated under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, with the approval of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and on 1^st stage advice of the Central Vigilance Commission dated 31.12.2016 for irregularities occurred during the construction work undertaken by Engineering Branch of Frontier Headquarters SSB, Siliguri (Annexure-R/1 & R/2). The articles of charges were served to Shri R. K. Dutta, the then Executive Engineer vide Memo No. 2184-87 dated 10.02.2016 & Shri Nabajit Das, Assistant Engineer (applicant) vide Memo No. 2181-83 dated 10.02.2016 (Annexure-R/3 & R/4). Thereafter, a common disciplinary proceeding was initiated against them in terms of Rule 18 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. That IO vide letter dated 08.11.2018 had submitted the DE report and after meet up the observations resubmitted DE report vide letter dated 24.02.2020. CVO, SSB was in agreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer w.r.t. Article of Charge I, II, III & IV but was not in total agreement with the findings on the Article of charge V & VI and was of opinion that the articles of charge V & VI are partially proved. The DG, SSB also acknowledged and agreed with comments of the CVO, SSB. The MHA being disciplinary authority in the instant case, the DE report along with all relevant documents were sent to MHA vide SSB ID Note dated 01.06.2020 and re-submitted on 04.08.2020 with disagreement note of the DG, SSB.

We have heard Sri M. Chanda, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri A. Kundu, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents and scrutinized the whole conspectus of the case. The case rulings cited by the parties are perused and taken on record.

Applicant is a Group B employee and that the Director General, SSB is the appointing authority and also Disciplinary Authority of the applicant. But in the instant case, the Charge Memorandum dated 10.02.2016 was issued by the Assistant Director (Per-I), who is not the Disciplinary Authority. It is also fact that disciplinary proceedings should be initiated prior to institution of proceedings. However, without following the proper procedure, respondents have directly issued the Charge sheet dated 10.02.2016 with 6 Article of Charges. We failed to understand that if the Disciplinary Authority is Director General, SSB, why the Charge sheet was not issued by the Director General, SSB and why this person was chosen. It is the responsibility of the Head of Office. There is a settled position of law that settled position cannot be unsettled. Further for the mistakes committed by the Department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant should not be made to suffer as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan (supra).

It is also fact that President is not the Disciplinary Authority in the case of the applicant as mentioned in the Charge Memo wherein it was mentioned as ‘By order and in the name of the President’. From the above, it is also candid clear that there was delay and lapses on the part of the respondents throughout the entire disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. The Charge Memo in the case of the applicant was issued on 10.02.2016 and the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed on 06.09.2016 and Inquiry Report dated 18.09.2019 was submitted to the applicant on 22.10.2021 i.e. after a lapse of over 5 years and 1 month. The respondents cannot tender any explanation for such inordinate delay. More so, all the alleged charges have not been ‘proved’ by the Inquiry Officer. Though Disciplinary Authority had disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Report dated 18.09.2019, but till date no final order has been communicated to the applicant.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned Charge Memorandum dated 10.02.2016 (Annexure-A/1) issued by the Assistant Director (Pers-I) is warranted interference and accordingly, same is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to act on the sealed cover dated 25.10.2018 containing the recommendation of the DPC dated 25.10.2018 for promotion of the applicant to the post of Executive Engineer and consider the case of the applicant for ad hoc promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the next DPC to be held in terms of the Fax Message dated. 13.12.2022 in terms of DOPT OM dated 14.09.1992, if applicant is found otherwise suitable.

O.A. stands partly allowed. Consequently, M.A. No. 040/00047/2024 stands disposed of. No order as to costs.