UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJESH KACHHAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in OA No. 301/2007 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are the petitioners. The respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. The respondent was functioning as Deputy General Manager Finance and Accounts. On surprise inspection, certain irregularities regarding the payment of bills passed by the respondent were noticed. Thereupon, vigilance enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the materials collected during the preliminary enquriy, a case as Crime No. RCA No. MA1/2003 for offence under S.120B, S.420, S.467, S.468 and S.471 IPC and under S.13(2) read with S.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the respondent and two others. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), after further investigation filed Annexure - A1 report before the Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai on 07/01/2005, reporting that the procedures laid down were not being implemented by the witnesses and other officials of BSNL, Chennai Telephones. But those irregularities were committed without any mala fide intention and because of that there is no loss to Government of India. Further, it was stated that it had come to the light that the respondent made various purchases; passed himself as Deputy Financial Advisor / Deputy General Manager and received the payments. Materials on record of the case would show that he had overstepped and negligent while performing official acts. With this statement, the case was requested to be referred to the department for initiating regular departmental action for major penalty against three accused persons for failure to maintain absolute integrity and for having acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant under R.3(1)(i) and R.3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. By Annexure A2 order, the Special Judge accepted the report and the investigating officer was permitted to return the documents to the department concerned. Thereafter, the department initiated actions against the respondent.

(2.) Annexure - A3 memorandum of charge along with statement of imputations was served upon the respondent. He was called upon to file his written statement. Assailing Annexure - A3 charge, the respondent moved the Tribunal below seeking an order to quash Annexure - A3 charge - sheet and for other incidental reliefs. The Tribunal below while allowing the application quashed Annexure - A3 charge - sheet with liberty to the petitioners to proceed against the respondent for minor penalty proceedings. Assailing the above order, this Writ Petition is filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) We have heard the Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Sri. S. Gopakumaran Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. We notice that Annexure - A3 charge sheet contains 12 articles pertaining to the misappropriation. The total amount covered by the charge - sheet would come to Rs.4,27,966/-. Allegations are of very serious nature. Going by the order impugned, we find that the Tribunal below had given undue regard for Annexure - A1 refer report and Annexure - A2 order, whereas Annexure - A3 was ignored. From Anneuxres - A1 and A2, we find that no head or tail can be made out of it. Both are not self speaking. Though refers to the statement of witnesses and documents seized during the investigation neither Annexure - A1 nor Annexure - A2 would contain a summary of the evidences collected. There is a statement in Annexure - A1 that no loss was caused to the Government of India. On what basis it was stated so in Annexure - A1 is not at all revealed out. Therefore, Annexure - A1 cannot be relied upon to conclude that no loss is sustained. For the best reason known to the respondent even the First Information Report was not produced before the Tribunal or before us for perusal to appreciate the nature of the allegations basing upon which the case was registered against the respondent. A reading of the imputations in Annexure - A3, along with the connected documents, would show that the allegations against the respondent are of very serious nature. The allegations include forgery, falsification and breach of trust. The amount would come to Rs.4,27,966/-. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the allegations are not supported by material documents. Annexure - A3 would show that the argument advanced by the learned counsel has no merit at all. Documents in support of allegations are listed one after another. Persuaded by the persistent argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent, we directed the standing counsel to ascertain whether there are documents in support of the allegations in Annexure - A3 charge - sheet. After verifying the files, he would assert. One of the allegations against the respondent is that without obtaining the approval from the General Manager, the respondent manipulated a document whereby certain other items were ordered to be purchased; and a Thoshiba Note Book Computer worth Rs.1,15,560/- was also purchased. The further allegation is that the respondent while relieving the office, the said Note Book was not returned. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the Note Book was purchased with due sanction and it was returned when the respondent was relieved from the office. The respondent was directed to produce the receipt witnessing the return of the Note Book. Reasonable time was granted to the respondent to produce the document. But, the respondent could not produce any document evidencing the return of the Note Book. Therefore, as things now stand, the petitioners had got sufficient documents in proof of Annexure - A3 charge. Going by Annexure - A3 with appended documents, we are not in a position to conclude that Annexure - A3 charge is without any basis. On the other hand, the documents prima facie establish a case against the respondent to be proceeded with disciplinary proceedings for major penalty. It is pertinent to note that in Annexure - A1 there is report that there was failure to maintain absolute integrity, negligent while performing official acts and the delinquents had acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant. This statement stares at the respondent. There is no good reason to ignore the above statement.