CAPART Vs. BR SUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTWITHSTANDING that the matter reached the Central Administrative Tribunal when a writ petition filed by the respondent in this Court challenging the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon him came to be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal where it was registered as TA No.1446/2009, vide impugned decision dated May 06, 2011, the Tribunal has not dealt with the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer. The penalty has been quashed holding that the charge sheet containing the charge and the statement of imputation accompanying the charge sheet were vague, indefinite and incomplete. Needless to state the underlying reasoning of the Tribunal is that such a charge sheet would cause an obvious prejudice. Secondly, the Tribunal has held that neither the charge sheet nor the statement of imputation accompanying the charge sheet make out any misdemeanour.

(2.) ON January 12, 1998 vide Memorandum No.14-5/95 AED a charge sheet containing Articles of Charge, Statement of Imputation, List of Documents through which the charges were proposed to be proved, and the witnesses intended to be examined were served upon the respondent. The substance of the Article of Charge reads as under:-

(3.) ON analyzing the evidence the Inquiry Office came to the conclusion that the examination of the substantive issues involved in the project was conducted in a slipshod manner. The project involved release of huge funds to a private party and the examination was incomplete to the extent that while the cost projection originally worked out by the voluntary organization was for a sum of Rs.13,29,500/- for 40 hand pumps @ Rs.33,237.50 per unit, the subsequent recommendations made by the Research Assistant was for 30 hand pumps @ Rs.23,000/- per pump without giving any reason for deduction in the unit cost; the same was opined to be prima facie arbitrary. He further noted that at said stage, the respondent was presented with a Note that was incomplete in several aspects as it did not disclose under what scheme the grant had been sought; whom it covered; who was eligible to receive it and for what purpose. He further noted that at said stage due to lack of information the respondent was bound to scrutinize the Note properly but he did not do so. He overlooked the incompleteness of the Note. He ought to have put a note that additional information was warranted before placing the matter before the senior officers for approval. This casts, as per the report of the Inquiry Officer, a doubt on the genuineness of the examination conducted by the respondent. The Inquiry Officer noted that it emerged from the record that the project had been processed from the stage of its receipt to its approval by the competent authority in one stride in a single day on October 27, 1994, passing through four scrutiny levels: the Research Assistant, the Additional Director, the Senior Director and the Deputy Director General and the same clearly evidenced that the decision had been taken in a hasty manner. The Inquiry Officer also observed that the sanction letter was handed over to the Project Holder on October 28, 1994, but the time had not been recorded on the file. Record also showed that the organization submitted its acceptance resolution vide letter dated October 30, 1994 and the same was personally handed over to the Senior Director by the Project Holder on the next date i.e. on October 31, 1994. The Research Assistant processed this communication on October 31, 1994 itself and forwarded it to the respondent. The same travelled all the way up to the Deputy Director General who also approved it on the same day and thus, the element of haste was quite apparent. Furthermore, the quality of examination of the acceptance resolution also indicated an uncanny and inexplicable haste in processing the case. The inquiry officer held that on the basis of the evidence on record, the charge against the respondent stood proved.