V D SHARMA Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 2.12.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby OA No. 1836/2002 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are as follows: The petitioner was working as Sub-Post Master (SPM) in Subroto Park Post Office. 08 Indira Vikas Patras for a total maturity value of Rs 40,000/- were received by the Post Office from State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, C Block, Community Centre, Janakpuri with a request that the amount of Indira Vikas Patras be paid to the bank through bearer. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on the allegations that instead of making payment of the said Indira Vikas Patras to the bank or to the bearer, who had brought those Indira Vikas Patras along with two covering letters from the bank, the Indira Vikas Patras were encashed by him, after obtaining signature of one Jagannath on the pretext of completion of the formalities. THIS was also the allegation that the petitioner did not obtain signature of the payee on the back side of Indira Vikas Patras in token of receipt of full payment. Yet another allegation against him was that though the payment was required to be made by cheque only, he made the same in cash, thereby violating the instructions issued on the subject. The Inquiry Officer vide his report dated 15.2.1999 held the Articles of Charge to be proved. Vide order dated 24.7.2000, the Disciplinary Authority compulsorily retired the petitioner from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 2.4.2002. The order of penalty was challenged by the petitioner in OA No.1260/2002. At the time of filing of said OA his appeal was still pending. The OA was disposed of with a direction to decide the appeal within two months. Consequent to dismissal of his appeal on 2.4.2002 the petitioner filed OA No. 1836/2002 challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The said OA was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.4.2004. Aggrieved from that order, the respondent filed a Writ Petition being WPC No.13115/2004 in this Court. The Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 31.8.2010, with a direction to the Tribunal to decide whether denial of the documents sought by the petitioner vide application dated 19.6.1998 was correct and whether the aforesaid denial had resulted in a prejudice being caused to him in making his defence. THIS Court also directed that all the issues which had arisen for consideration before the Tribunal should be decided instead of deciding only one or two of them.

(2.) THREE contentions have been raised before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first contention is that the denial of documents sought vide application dated 19.6.1998, which were relevant for the purpose of inquiry, had resulted in prejudice being caused to the petitioner in defending himself during the inquiry. The second contention is that the petitioner was proceeded ex parte during pendency of his application for change of the Inquiry Officer, though it was obligatory for the Inquiry Officer to stay the inquiry till the application for change of the Inquiry Officer was decided by the Disciplinary Authority. The third contention is that the copy of the report of the Preliminary Inquiry and the Statements of Witnesses examined during the course of Preliminary Inquiry were not supplied to the petitioner, which vitiated the disciplinary proceedings.

(3.) IT is thus, settled proposition of law that the Statements of Witnesses recorded in the Preliminary Inquiry or during investigation are required to be supplied to a delinquent if such statements are relied upon in the course of the Inquiry or such persons are sought to be produced as witnesses during the course of the Inquiry. Denial of statements of such witnesses would result in prejudice being caused to the delinquent in making his defence since in the absence of a copy of the previous statement being available to him he would not be in a position to effectively cross examine the witness when he/she appears in the course of the Inquiry. If however, a person is not sought to be examined during the course of Inquiry nor is his statement, recorded during the course of Preliminary Inquiry or during investigation, sought to be relied upon, to prove the charge against the delinquent, he is not entitled to copies of such statements, since absence of copies of such statements will not prejudice him in making his defence during the course of Inquiry.