JAGDISH NARAYAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the fact's of the aforesaid two writ petitions are inter-connected and inter-related, I propose to take up both these writ petitions together and dispose of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) The petitioner is at present working as Director (Personnel) of the Western Coal Fields Limited. While the petitioner was discharging his duties in the aforesaid capacity, a Memorandum of Charge was issued to the petitioner on 11/6/1998. In the said Memorandum of Charge, four charges have been listed. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence. The same was found to be unsatisfactory by the disciplinary authority and accordingly an Enquiry Officer was appointed. During the aforesaid enquiry proceeding, the petitioner denied all the allegations levelled against him and, therefore, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to receive evidence in the said enquiry proceeding. On behalf of the disciplinary authority, three witnesses were examined and several documents were produced in evidence. The petitioner was also represented by his defence assistant in the enquiry proceeding and during the aforesaid proceeding, the petitioner also produced a number of documents. On completion of the enquiry proceeding, the enquiry officer submitted his report.

(3.) So far Articles I and II are concerned, the enquiry officer held that the petitioner in good faith signed appointment letters in respect of 14 persons after approving a single page note sheet initiated by Shri Akhileshwar Prasad on 12/10/1995 against the Land Loser Scheme by accepting the statement that the proposal had the approval of the competent authority after observance of all the procedures. He further held that it was not established that the petitioner violated the official rules and regulations, that he misused his official power, that failed to maintain devotion to duty, that failed to conduct himself in a manner which would, enhance the reputation of the company, that failed to ensure integrity and devotion to duty of his subordinate employees and that failed to act on his best Judgment. It was also held by the enquiry officer that the petitioner did not contravene the Rule of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules as also the CDA Rules. So far Article III is concerned, the enquiry officer found that it was established that the 24 persons got their appointment through fraud and deceit and that it had come on record that after the fraud came to notice, the illegal appointees had been terminated from service and were no longer in employment. A copy of the aforesaid report of the enquiry officer was forwarded to the Central Vigilance Commission for its second stage advice on the findings of the enquiry officer. On 8/2/2001, the Central Vigilance Commission tendered its second stage advice in respect of the petitioner.