PARESH NATH SHARMA Vs. UOI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 4th May, 2001 proceeded, via Inquiry Report dated 26th June, 2002, to their culmination by way of order dated 9th December, 2002, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service, and his gratuity forfeited. An application, filed by the petitioner, seeking review of the said decision, was also dismissed, vide order dated 2nd September, 2003. The petitioner prays that the Inquiry Report dated 26th June, 2002, the order dated 9th December, 2002 and the order dated 2nd September, 2003, be quashed and set-aside.

(2.) On 10th April, 1995, the petitioner was appointed Director (Finance) in the office of respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred as "MMTC"), for a tenure of five years. The said tenure expired on 14th May, 2000. A selection board recommended re-appointment of the petitioner for five more years, pending which the petitioner was continued as Director (Finance) vide order dated 13th November, 2000. As, in the interregnum, a preliminary inquiry was conducted, into certain complaints against the petitioner, this second appointment never fructified.

(3.) On 4th May, 2001, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, proposing holding of an inquiry, against him, under Rule 25 of the MMTC Employees Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975. It contained five Articles of Charge. The petitioner filed his reply, to the charge-sheet, on 10th May, 2001. Apparently finding the same insufficient to drop the Charges, regular departmental inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer (hereinafter referred to as "IO"), in his Inquiry Report dated 26th June, 2002, held Articles I, IV and V of the Articles of Charge against the petitioner not to have been proved, Article-III to be partly proved and Article-II to have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority (hereinafter referred to as "DA") disagreed with the findings of the IO as, in his view, all Articles of Charge, against the petitioner, stood duly proved. The DA, therefore, referred the matter to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), for its "second stage advice", enclosing, therewith, the records of the case, including the reasons for its disagreement with the findings of the IO, insofar as they held some of the Articles of Charge, against the petitioner, not to have been proved, or only to have been partly proved. The CVC responded, vide Note dated 13th September, 2002, concurring with the view of the DA. The DA, accordingly, issued Memorandum, dated 17 th September, 2002, to the petitioner, communicating its disagreement with the findings, in the Inquiry Report dated 26th June, 2002, insofar as they were in the petitioner's favour, and enclosing, therewith, the Memo issued by the CVC. The petitioner's response, thereto, is not on record; however, vide order dated 9th December, 2002 (impugned by the petitioner), the DA, reiterating the view expressed by him in his disagreement memo, held all the Articles of Charge, against the petitioner, to have been proved and, consequently, imposed, on the petitioner, the penalty of dismissal from service, accompanied by forfeiture of his entire gratuity and disqualification from future employment in the Government and its organisations. The petitioner filed an application, before the Minister of Commerce and Industry, seeking a review of the impugned decision, dated 9th December, 2002, of the DA. Vide order dated 2nd September, 2003 (also impugned by the petitioner), the said application for review was also dismissed as "devoid of any merit". The petitioner, consequently, is before me, having invoked, against the aforementioned decisions of the DA and the reviewing authority, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.