AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Dr.Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-
Smt. Susheela Kumari is working as a Librarain of Government Ishani Shani SKV, G- Block, Saket New Delhi. The Disciplinary Authority issued a memorandum of charges under the Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to her, vide order dated 21.04.2016. She was directed to appear before the Inquiry Officer and to submit a reply or representation regarding the matter contained in the charge memorandum, vide their letters dated 16.6.2012, 21.6.2012, 04.07.2012 and 18.07.2012. It has been alleged that Smt. Susheela Kumari, Librarian neither appeared before the Inquiry Officer nor submitted her representation. Again, vide show cause notice dated 01.09.2012 and 19.09.2012, she was directed to cooperate with the Inquiry Officer(IO) but she did not comply with such directions. For this disobedience, the Disciplinary Authority has imputed that she has violated the provisions of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct Rules), 1964 and hence ordered an inquiry under Rule 16 of the said rule. Vide order dated 4.7.2016, the Disciplinary Authority appointed Smt. Sudesh Kumari, Principal of CGSSS, Sector-V, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar New Delhi-110062 as a Inquiry Officer. Subsequently another Inquiry Officer, namely, Sh. Kuldep Singh, Principal of SAP, GBSSS, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Sector -5, New Delhi was appointed. The respondents their counter affidavit have clarified that because the charged officer complained regarding the first Inquiry Officer, the second Inquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 9.10.2017.
The applicant in her in the Original Application has alleged that the Disciplinary Authority was biased against her (the applicant in present OA). She has pleaded that she has asked for certain documents without which she could not defend her case and she was never supplied such documents. Moreover, the Disciplinary Proceedings were pending since long period. It is a settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar (CA 958/2010) decided on 16.12.2015; wherein it was been held that “disciplinary proceedings should be finalized within six months and in case due to some genuine difficulties it could be not finalized within six months, the disciplinary proceedings have to be completed within additional period of six months”. In the instant case, the applicant has alleged that more than one and a half year have passed and not a single hearing has taken place in the present case. In view of this, she has sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated 21.4.2016 and appointment of the first Inquiry Officer vide order dated 04.07.2016 and the second Inquiry Officer vide order 09.10.2017.
Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter affidavit to which the learned counsel for the applicant has also filed rejoinder.
The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the applicant in her present Original Application has tried to mislead the court by citing two Inquiry Officers(IO). It has been clarified that second IO was appointed because the applicant complained regarding the first Inquiry Officer. He has further clarified that one previous charge-memo was issued to the applicant which was quashed by this Tribunal vide it’s order dated 12.8.2015 only for the reason that it was vogue and the Tribunal has granted liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh charge sheet in the prescribed format. The respondents have complied with the orders of this Tribunal and issued a fresh charge sheet which is quite specific and in the required format. Instead of cooperating with the IO, she did not appear before the Inquiry Officer. Nevertheless, the Inquiry Officer has completed inquiry and submitted his inquiry report dated 01.03.2018. In view of this the respondents have pleaded that the present OA has become infructuous and it should be dismissed.
In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the applicant has again alleged that charge sheet is vogue and quoted the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Transport Commissioner of Madras vs. P.K. Murthy SLJ 1995 (1) SC 147, in the case of Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar CA No. 958/2010 and the judgment in the case of Anil Kumar vs. UOI SCC 1985 L&S 815 wherein it has been held that “where there is no discussion of the evidence by the inquiry officer, there is no inquiry”.
We have gone through the pleadings as well as the records of the case carefully and heard the arguments advanced by both parties. It is our considered opinion that as the Inquiry Officer has already submitted his inquiry report dated 01.03.2018, the present OA has become infructuous in which the charge-sheet has been challenged.
In view of the explained position above, the OA has become infructuous and the same is disposed of. However, the applicant is at liberty to file fresh OA, if she is aggrieved by any disciplinary action taken based on the inquiry report. There shall be no order as to costs.