C.P. RAI Vs. CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE AND THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of removal order dated 4th May, 1989 besides seeking directions for his reinstatement with back wages. Brief facts relevant to decide the present writ petition, as set out by the petitioner inter alia, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Research Officer in 1982 on probation with respondent No. 1 vide memorandum dated 16th January. 1986. Due to some acts of indiscipline complained by the respondent an enquiry for major penalty under Rule 14 of the CCS Rules, 1965 was set up against the petitioner. One Mr. R.S. Gupta, Vigilance Officer of respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The petitioner raised certain objections against the said Enquiry Officer and one of the ground raised was that the said Enquiry Officer had declined the request of the petitioner to engage services of a lawyer as his defence assistant. The petitioner also took objection to the presence of one Mr. R.K. Verma during the entire enquiry proceedings to assist the Enquiry Officer. Due to such objections raised by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority appointed one Mr. T.R. Anand as Enquiry Officer in place of Mr. R.S. Gupta. Prior to appointment of this Enquiry Officer, the petitioner nominated one Mr. S.S. Saini, Senior Accounts Officer to act as his defence assistant and a request was made to adjourn the ensuing proceedings till Mr. Saini makes him available to defend the case. However, the said Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold enquiry on day to day basis even in the absence of defence assistant. The said Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses as adduced by respondent No. 1 without caring about the absence of the petitioner. By letter dated 12th June, 1987 the Enquiry Officer was contacted by the petitioner to point out that the procedure adopted by him was in violation of CCS Rules, 1965. This Enquiry Officer had also rejected the request of the petitioner for the nomination of a legal practitioner so as to present his case. Since the enquiry was in progress, therefore, instead of appointing a legal practitioner the petitioner had nominated one Mr. K.L. Juneja, who was working with MCD on the post of Accountant, as his defence assistant. MCD had also granted permission to Mr. Juneja to act as a defence assistant of the petitioner vide letter dated 17th February, 1987. In the interregnum, the Enquiry Officer had proceeded with the enquiry proceedings without even waiting for the presence of Mr. Juneja. The petitioner gave many representations to the Enquiry Officer about his various irregularities, but the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the matter ignoring the said objections raised by him. An ex parte report dated 13th March. 1987 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. In the said enquiry report the petitioner was found guilty of three charges out of a total of 7 charges. The matter was again taken up by the petitioner with respondent No. 1, complaining various irregularities committed by the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry proceedings. Agreeing with the request of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 directed the same Enquiry Officer to re -open the enquiry proceedings and give due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This time again, the petitioner made a request to allow him to take the services of a legal practitioner but again request of the petitioner was turned down. The petitioner failed to engage any defence assistant and vide report dated 22.9.1988 the Enquiry Officer resubmitted his report almost verbatim of the earlier report dated 13th March, 1987. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the finding of the Enquiry Officer awarded major penalty of removal vide order dated 4th May, 1989.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioner has assailed the decision of the Enquiry Officer as well as that of the Disciplinary Authority in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE first argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer has failed to follow the instructions given by respondent No. 1 after the enquiry was re -opened. Placing reliance on the covering letter dated 22th September, 1988 counsel for the petitioner contended that vide letter dated 6.7.1987 respondent No. 1 had given certain to the Enquiry Officer, but due to ulterior design, he did not follow the same. The directions given by respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 6.7.1987, which forms part of the covering letter dated 22th September, 1988 are as under: -