A.K. BHAGAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner to assail the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 23.01.2019 passed in O.A. No.696/2014 dismissing the petitioner's Original Application, and dated 11.03.2019 whereby his Review Application (R.A.) 72/2019 was dismissed. The petitioner had assailed his removal from service by way of punishment.

(2.) Three issues arise for our consideration, including an important question of law, namely: Whether the "Disagreement Note" issued by the Disciplinary Authority upon receipt of the inquiry report - with which he proposes to disagree, is liable to be considered as containing his "final" opinion, merely because the Disagreement Note does not use the expression "tentative", or other similar expression, and merely because he may have used words and language which convey that the opinion expressed in the Disagreement Note is "final" even though, his conduct betrays the fact that he granted an opportunity to the delinquent to make a representation against the Disagreement Note, and only upon consideration of the same, passed the final order. This question begets another one viz. whether one should look at merely the form, or the substance of the "Disagreement Note" and the manner in which the Disciplinary Authority conducts himself while dealing with, and in relation to the Disagreement Note. The other two issues that arise are: (i) What is the effect of the Petitioner/ Delinquent Employee not raising the issue of the Disagreement Note being worded to appear as "final", and not "tentative", at the earliest stage when it is issued by the Disciplinary Authority, and; (ii) Assuming that the Disagreement Note is worded as containing a "final" opinion, and there is breach of the Principles of Natural Justice in the conduct of the Disciplinary Proceedings to that extent, are the proceedings rendered null and void, and are liable to be quashed to the extent they are in breach of the said Principles on that ground alone, or would it be necessary for the delinquent employee to also plead and establish the prejudice actually suffered by him due to the said breach of the Principles of Natural Justice.

(3.) Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for imposition of major penalty. The memorandum of charge dated 01/02.09.2006 served on the petitioner contained two charges, pertaining to acceptance of illegal monetary gratification by the petitioner from another member of the force, Constable A.K. Jha. The petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed accepting bribe of Rs. 10,000/- for official favor, and Rs. 35,000/- for promising recruitment to the persons for the post of Constable, by passing them in medical examinations through illegal means.