AK GAUTAM Vs. I.I.T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the charge sheet dated September 1, 1994, report of the Enquiry Officer, the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated June 23, 1997 and order of the Appellate Authority dated December 11, 1997.

(2.) The petitioner, who was working as Technical Assistant was issued a charge sheet on September 1, 1994 alleging violation of Rule 3(a) of Conduct Rules and Statute No.13(9) of the Statutes of the Institute, which stipulates that every employee shall maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and Rule 3(25) (2) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The charge against the petitioner was "He while functioning as Technical Assistant in Computer Service Centre of the Institute pilfered two ICB's which were under his custody on 24.03.1994. Therefore he violated provision of Para 3(a) of Conduct Rules given in Schedule B to the Statutes of the Institute which inter alia stipulates that every employee shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and Rule 3 (25)(2) of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 which stipulates the acts and omission amount to misconduct". The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on September 6, 1994 wherein he denied the charges. It is his case that, he requested the Disciplinary authority for a copy of Preliminary Enquiry (PE) and Information about date of approving chargesheet by Disciplinary authority. The PE was denied. No date on which the Disciplinary authority approved the chargesheet was given. One Prof. Anshul Kumar was appointed as Enquiry Officer on September 13, 1994. Later Professor Anshul Kumar was replaced by Professor C.M. Bhatia as the Enquiry Officer. It is averred on November 01, 1995 the petitioner made a request for inspection of documents. On November 3, 1995 petitioner submitted list of defence documents as well as the names of the defence witnesses. In addition, he sought (i) Copy of PE (ii) copies of statements earlier obtained of witnesses (iii) the approval of chargesheet by Disciplinary authority. It is his case that inquiry was conducted without allowing the inspection of the listed documents. A written request was submitted to the Enquiry Officer for the same and to intimate the CO the time and date for such an inspection. Inspection of the listed documents was done during the course of inquiry.

(3.) It is his case vide letter dated January 9, 1996, he was informed (i) DE was initiated with the approval of competent authority (ii) Additional documents of defence be looked into by Establishment. The Enquiry Officer examined four witnesses namely G.S. Kohli, N.C. Kalra, S.S. Sehgal and Dr. M.N. Gupta. The statements of the aforesaid witnesses were recorded on January 9, 1996. On January 31, 1996 statement of the petitioner was recorded as DW1. It is the case of the petitioner that the depositions of the prosecution witnesses were handed over to him on January 22, 1996. Similarly, the Enquiry Officer refused to hand over the minutes of the hearing held on January 31, 1996 to the petitioner. The petitioner, in his representation dated March 18, 1996 has expressed his apprehension on the manner in which the proceedings were held. The reply to the petitioner's letter dated March 18, 1996 was given on March 29, 1996 in a most cryptic manner. On April 30, 1996 notice for hearing to be held on May 16, 1996 was issued. On June 5, 1996 the statement of the petitioner as DW 1 continued. On July 5, 1996 cross examination of the petitioner by the Presenting Officer was recorded. The petitioner produced another defence witness on August 1, 1996 namely S.N. Tiwari. The defence evidence was closed on August 13, 1996. On the same day, the petitioner protested against the decision of the Enquiry Officer to call for additional witnesses and other evidence. The petitioner wrote to the Director, Indian Institute of Technology against the decision of the Enquiry Officer to call additional evidence as Court/expert witnesses at that stage as Enquiry Officer refused to accept his protest letter. On August 19, 1996, the Enquiry Officer decided to call additional witnesses despite petitioner's protest. On August 27, 1996, the petitioner informed the Enquiry Officer that if additional witnesses are called for as Court/expert witnesses, he would not participate in the proceedings. The Assistant Registrar sent copies of the evidence of additional witnesses recorded on August 27 and 29, 1996 to the petitioner. The Presenting Officer submitted his written brief on October 13, 1996 and the petitioner submitted his written brief on November 11, 1996. On December 26, 1996, the petitioner was given opportunity to make his representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which was submitted by the petitioner on January 15, 1997. On May 21, 1997, the petitioner was given an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed punishment/penalty, which he made on June 3, 1997. On June 23, 1997, the order of penalty was passed, whereby the petitioner was imposed a penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect for two years. The petitioner submitted his appeal to the Chairman, Board of Governors on September 17, 1997. On April 13, 1998, copy of letter dated December 11, 1997 was delivered to the petitioner, which was a copy of the order of the Appellate Authority, which according to the petitioner is highly cryptic and not sustainable in the eye of law.