UNION OF INDIA Vs. TEJVIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, we are disposing of the above writ petitions. WP(C)7283-85/2005 is filed by the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Director General of Health Services and the Medical Superintendent, Dr.Ram Manohar Lal Hospital (RR Cell) against the judgment and order dated 24th December, 2004 in OA 462/2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The said OA had been filed by respondent-Tejvir Singh by which he challenged the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing a punishment of removal from service. The Tribunal partly allowed the OA. Respondent Tejvir Singh along with one Dayanand (respondent in WP(C) 7849-51/2005), Om Prakash, Vinod Bist and Rishipal were proceeded in a joint inquiry for allegedly entering upon and disturbing the proceeding of a Selection Committee. The Inquiry Officer held the charges to be fully proved. Tejvir Singh and Dayanand were awarded punishment of removal from service while others were given lesser punishment of reduction in rank/pay and stopping of increments. Respondents (Petitioners in OA) had contended before the Tribunal that misconduct attributed to Tejvir Singh and Dayanand was the same as of other delinquents who have been let off with a lesser punishment. The Tribunal reached the conclusion that allegations arise of a common incident and all the delinquents were held equally responsible for the misconduct. The Tribunal partly allowed the OA. Operative portion of the order is as under:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj in support of the writ petitions contended that the role of Tejvir Singh and Dayanand was a pivotal one and they had acted as leaders. He submits that same becomes apparent from the fact that they were specifically named by the witnesses. This also became apparent from the evidence of Dr.Ved Bhushan who mentioned that Dayanand, Tejvir Singh and four others demanded to know why Ram Kumar had not been called for interview. Again Dr.D.K.Godpayle and Dr.Kailash Raizada had specifically named Dayanand, Tejvir and others in their depositions as having used foul language. Counsel submitted that from the reading of the inquiry report as also the evidence of witnesses and the statement of one Vinod Bist, it becomes apparent that these two were the leaders. Besides, learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balbir Chand Vs. The Food Corporation of India Ltd and Ors JT 1996 (11) SC 507 to urge that giving lesser punishment compared to others does not entitle the others to claim lesser punishment even if there has been omission in imposing lesser punishment and one cannot claim parity under Article 14.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents very persuasively attempted to urge that Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that misconduct arose from the same incident and no distinct role can be attributed to these two and hence imposition of punishment of removal from service against these two operated extremely harshly.