RAKESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a member of Indian Foreign Service (IFS) and was on deputation with Indian Council of Cultural Relations (ICCR), as its Director General from 19.08.2003 to 12.09.2005. An FIR under Sections 420/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigations, on 27.02.2006. On completing investigation, the CBI filed a charge-sheet on 24.12.2007 against five persons, including the petitioner. A charge-sheet comprising the following charges was served upon the petitioner, vide memorandum dated 01.04.2008.

(2.) OA No.1876/2008 was filed by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal (herein after referred to as the ,,Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi, challenging the charge-sheet. The same was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 22.12.2009. The Tribunal noted that the petitioner had made a representation dated 13.05.2008 to the President of India, taking a number of grounds, but the Disciplinary Authority, while considering the representation and deciding to institute an inquiry, had not discussed the points raised by the petitioner. The Tribunal directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass a speaking order on the representation of the petitioner. It was further directed that the Disciplinary Authority would not take any action in the disciplinary case till the decision was taken on the representation.

(3.) IN Kurusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.: AIR 1988 4 SCC 319, the Supreme Court was of the view that it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, straight-jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application with regard to the particulars of the individual-situation and, therefore, it would depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case as to whether there should or should not be simultaneous proceedings against the employee, one under the disciplinary rules applicable to him and the other under the criminal law.