K.K.S. SIROHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O .A No.2917/2012 and O.A No.3320/2012 filed by the writ petitioners pertaining to disciplinary action initiated against them have been disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide impugned order dated March 19, 2013, directing the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners within three months.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary to understand the issue raised in this writ petition are that in the year 2007 common proceedings under Rule 14 read with Rule 18 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 were initiated against 4 persons including the petitioners herein who were working as Assistant Agricultural Marketing Advisor and Marketing Officer respectively under the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, Faridabad. As per the annexures to the charge-sheet 13 documents were listed in Annexure III on the basis of which it was stated that the charge would be proved. We note that as per Annexure IV no witness was named through whom the said documents were intended to be proved.

(3.) SURPRISINGLY at the remanded stage the Inquiry Officer simply took on record the documents filed by the prosecution by marking them as P-1, P-2 etc. How they incriminate the petitioners has not been put to the petitioners. No witness of the department has been examined. A vagueness in the charge-sheet which alleges violation of a rule without mentioning the rule has been sought to be filled up by questioning the Presenting Officer and noting his response. A report has been submitted which was forwarded to the petitioners for the response and along with the response matter has been referred to UPSC which vide its letter dated June 26, 2012 has reiterated once again violation of Sub Rule 18 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as also treating relied upon documents as proved without the same being proved or alternatively not recoding that the petitioners have accepted the documents. UPSC required the defects to be removed and accordingly on July 31, 2012 and August 01, 2012 the petitioners were informed that the matter would be re-inquired into. It is these communications which the petitioners challenged before the Tribunal stating that under the guise of further inquiry, the department is trying to fill up gaps and lacunae in the evidence, a plea which has been rejected by the Tribunal with a direction that the inquiry be completed within 3 months. Said order is in challenge.