UNION OF INDIA (UOI) THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING AND ANR. Vs. TARLOK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Anr. have challenged the order dated 12th March, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A No. 2759/2005 titled as Sh. Tarlok Singh v. Union of India and Ors.' allowing the original application of the Respondent and setting aside the order dated 28th August, 2002 of major punishment imposed upon the Respondent and holding that consequent to setting aside of major punishment the Respondent shall be entitled for all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE brief facts to comprehend the disputes between the parties are that the Respondent was appointed as JE on 9th June, 1989 and was subsequently promoted as AE (Electrical). On 9th July, 1996 a memorandum of charge sheet was served on the Respondent alleging that he had accepted an alternator of lesser frame size and had falsely recommended passing of the first running account bill of M/s. Escorts Ltd. Allegations were also made that he did not initiate action for testing the alternator. The articles of charges made against the Respondent were denied by him. An enquiry officer, Sh. Onkarmal Kedia, Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries, CVC was appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the Respondent. Though an enquiry was conducted in which the Respondent did not examine himself as witness, however, in compliance with Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 the evidence against the Respondent was not put to him. The allegation was also made by the Respondent that the enquiry officers conducted the enquiry proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) THE Respondent also came to know that the UPSC was consulted regarding the punishment to be imposed, however, copy of the opinion of UPSC was not given to the Respondent, which was mandatory. The Respondent, therefore, filed an appeal on 17th March, 2003 which was converted into a revision petition, however, the reviewing authority rejected the same by order dated 30th November, 2005. Aggrieved by the order, the Respondent filed an original application being O.A No. 2759/2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench on the grounds inter -alia that the enquiry officer did not put the evidence adduced against him during the enquiry in compliance of Rule 14 sub Rule 18 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which contemplates that the enquiry authority, after Government servant closes his case, and if the employee has not examined himself, shall generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, for the purpose of enabling the employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. The Respondent also challenged the appointment of Sh.O. Kedia, Commissioner for departmental enquiry, CVC, who conducted the enquiry against the Respondent, on the ground that he was also directed to hold the enquiry in case of Sh.D.S. Manchanda and Sh. Lalit Kumar against whom similar charge sheet had already been issued.