P R R NAIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the charge sheet dated June 22, 1988 issued by the respondent No.3 as also the order dated January 5, 1999 passed by the respondent No. 3 appointing an Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as the Registrar of the respondent Institute and he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.4,500-Rs.7,300. He was so appointed after his case for such appointment was recommended by the selection committee and his case was approved by the Executive Committee in its meeting held on February 27, 1996. The aforesaid order of appointment was issued by the Joint Director of the Institute. While the petitioner was working as the Registrar of the respondent Institute, the respondent No.3 was directed by an order dated August 1, 1997 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development to assume the charge of the Director of the Institute with immediate effect. The aforesaid appointment of the respondent No.3 was also approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. The said approval was granted by memorandum dated November 19, 1997 approving the proposal for entrusting the additional charge of the post of the Director of the respondent Institute without any extra remuneration for a period of six months or till a regular incumbent joins or until further orders. The aforesaid approval was renewed from time to time and the said respondent NO.3 was discharging the duties of the Director of the Institute when a departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner.

(3.) A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on June 22, 1988 under the signature of the respondent No.3 enclosing therewith a statement of imputations of misconduct concerning articles of charges framed against the petitioner. By the aforesaid memorandum issued on June 22, 1988 the petitioner was asked to submit his reply as against the charges drawn up against him. The petitioner submitted his reply as against the aforesaid charges. However, the aforesaid reply was found to be not satisfactory and, therefore, it was decided that the departmental enquiry would continue against the petitioner and accordingly a request was sent to the Central Vigilance Commission for lending the service of an officer to act as the Inquiry Officer in the departmental proceeding. The aforesaid request of the respondent Institute was accepted and an officer was assigned to the respondent Institute to act as the Inquiry Officer in the proceeding against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer received evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter he submitted his report. However, in the said report the Inquiry Officer found the petitioner to be not guilty of the charges. In the meantime, a full time Director was appointed by the respondent before whom the aforesaid findings of the Inquiry Officer were placed. The said Director upon going through the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the tentative reasons for not agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer were recorded which were sent to the petitioner as required in accordance with the principles of the natural justice as laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra and another, 1998 -II-LLJ-199 (SC). The petitioner is yet to submit his reply as against the aforesaid memorandum issued by the Director of the Institute on February 5, 2003.