LAWS(DLH)-2010-3-125

U O I Vs. M L SHARMA

Decided On March 18, 2010
UOI Appellant
V/S
M.L. SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Secretary, Ministry of Corporate A f fairs has challenged the order dated 6th March, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 1738/2007 titled M.L. Sharma Vs. Union of India allowing the original application of the respondent and setting aside the order dated 20th September, whereby major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the respondent and holding that as the applicant has already attained the age of superannuation, he would be deemed to be in service from 20th September, 2006 till he retired on superannuation and shall be entitled for all the consequences and retiral benefits in accordance with rules. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the respondent joined as an Assistant in Department of Company Af fairs on 23rd December, 1968. He was appointed to the post of Joint Director (Legal) on 7th August, 1990 in the of fice of Regional Director, Bombay on selection and he held various positions. However, before his superannuation, Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 were initiated on the ground that he had indulged in transaction of immovable property of Rs. 1 lac without reporting it and that he made additional construction in the house inherited from his father to the extent of Rs. 9,67,645/- without reporting to the prescribed authority and that he did not informed about his relatives being shareholders of one company M/s. Janthal Agro Foods (P) Ltd. and he made transactions as members of Hindu undivided joint family and he was fond in possession of disproportionate assets known to legal sources of his income. Pursuant to departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent, the inquiry was conducted by Central Vigilance Commission. The Inquiry Of ficer did not find any charges proved against the respondent, however, on consultation with CVC, major penalty was recommended and the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement note by memorandum dated 18th May, 2004, disagreeing on the articles of charges I, I I, I I I and V and thereafter, after consultation with UPSC, the penalty of compulsory retirement, two months be fore the age of superannuation was imposed on the respondent.

(2.) The respondent challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority by filing an original application, inter-alia, on the ground that the disagreement note was based on extraneous consideration as no evidence was adduced in respect of any of the charges and the Disciplinary Authority had also imputed his own knowledge and misinterpreted the rules. I t was also asserted that no cogent evidence was adduced by the petitioner to bring the case of the respondent within the ambit of misconduct as defined under Rule 18 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Regarding the article of charges, it was asserted that Rs. 1 lac was handed over to him by his family members and even that amount was not in the name of the respondent and consequently, the disagreement note was apparently on account of non- application of mind. Regarding acquisition of property and the addition alteration carried out in the same to the extent of Rs. 9,67,645/-, it was pleaded that on the basis of a Will of executed by his father, the rights in the property were not transferred during the lifetime of the executants of the Will and in any case the addition alteration in the property was carried out by his brother who had incurred the expenditure and not by the petitioner. It was specifically asserted that there was no proof produced by the petitioner that the construction cost was incurred by the respondent and the inferences of the petitioner were based on surmises and conjectures. Regarding the relatives of the respondent being the employees of the company, it was contended that his daughter was only a Director and so she was not an employee and he could not be held guilty of violation of Rule 4 of CCS (Conduct) Rules.

(3.) The respondent categorically averred that regarding disproportionate assets in terms of Article 5 of charge, there was no evidence and Inquiry Of ficer had dropped the charge, however without any application of mind and without any cogent reason and evidence the Disciplinary Authority issued the disagreement note without justifying as to how he had assets disproportionate to his income. On the basis of expenditure incurred by the brother of the respondent on the property of the father and a two wheeler in the name of the daughter of the respondent valuing about Rs. 37,000/-, it could not be held that the respondent possessed about Rs. 30 lacs and his assets were disproportionate to his sources of income.