UNION OF INDIA Vs. M. N. SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 10.01.2007 in O.A. No. 2450/2004. The respondent/applicant, who, at the relevant time was working as Assistant Enforcement Officer, challenged a disciplinary order dated 03.02.2004, which imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement upon him. The CAT, by its order set aside the penalty, but at the same time granted liberty to the petitioner/UOI to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings after reinstating the respondent/applicant, and continue the said proceeding from the stage of issue of chargesheet.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that the respondent was working as an Assistant Enforcement Officer, a post to which he was appointed in the year 1983. On 17.10.2000, a major penalty chargesheet was issued against the applicant, containing one article of charge which alleged, inter alia, that during the course of his official functioning from 17.04.1998 to 11.06.1999, he was deployed to investigate a case relating to outstanding export proceeds in respect of M/s. Iqbal International. He unauthorisedly met the proprietor of the said concern - - Sh. R.S. Chauhan beyond the official working hours without informing his superior officers. It was also alleged that the respondent had demanded illegal gratification from the said Sh. R.S. Chauhan. The last allegation levelled was that Sh. R.S. Chauhan had handed - over a video cassette containing a recording which showed the respondent/applicant in a compromising position with some woman, thus showing the department in poor light. The charges were resisted by the applicant. In the course of departmental proceedings, the Enquiry Officer (EO) proved in his report two charges, i.e. of unauthorisedly meeting Sh. R.S. Chauhan without reporting to the superior officers, and that pertaining to the video cassette recording. The EO, however, held that the charge of demand of illegal gratification could not be proved. As a matter of fact, in the course of enquiry, Sh. R.S. Chauhan, the alleged complainant, did not present himself or record his statement - - either in support of the charge of demand of illegal gratification. or as to the video recording. After duly considering the report, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the exoneration recorded in respect of the charge of demand of illegal Page 3 gratification. Ultimately, the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed. The departmental appeal of the respondent was also dismissed. Consequently, the respondent approached the CAT.

(3.) IT is urged on behalf of the UOI that the CAT fell into error in concluding - as it did, that the procedure followed was contrary to the rules. It is submitted in this regard that so far as the video recording is concerned, the answers given by the applicant/respondent in response to the questions clearly show his admission about the recording pertaining to his activities. Emphasizing that strict rules of evidence are inapplicable in disciplinary proceedings, learned counsel submits that the CAT's inference with the findings of the enquiry were, therefore, not warranted, in the circumstances of the case.