JACOB K. A. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined as Junior Stenographer in the second respondent/Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) on 14/5/1986. He was promoted as Accountant/Account Assistant on 30/12/1997 and as Senior Accountant on 14/8/2009. On being promoted as Senior Accountant, the petitioner was posted at the head office of the second respondent. While working at the head office, the petitioner was placed under suspension and issued with Ext.P1 memorandum dtd. 26/5/2015, proposing to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Along with the memorandum, the articles of charge, statement of imputations, list of witnesses and copies of documents were appended. The allegations, based on which disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner, are as under; The petitioner claimed and obtained reimbursement of medical expenses by producing fraudulent documents. Thereby the petitioner caused loss to the MPEDA. Three medical bills dtd. 20/1/2015 supported by medical certificates issued by Dr.Maya were tampered, by entering the consultation fees which Dr.Maya never charged or received from him. The said bills were recommended for payment by the petitioner himself, in his capacity as Senior Accountant. Thereby, the competent authority was misled into believing that the bills were supported by valid medical certificates. By his action, the petitioner indulged in acts unbecoming of a Government servant and violated Rule 3 (1)(i) to (ii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

(2.) The petitioner gave Ext.P2 reply to the charges which the third respondent/Chairman found not satisfactory. Hence, an Inquiry Officer was appointed as per Ext.P3 office order dtd. 24/7/2015. The inquiry proceedings commenced on 1/10/2015. That day itself the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application, requesting the Inquiry Officer to call for 14 additional documents. The Inquiry Officer decided to call for 8 additional documents and rejected the request for the other 6, finding those documents to be irrelevant for the inquiry. The details of additional documents were furnished under Ext.P5 communication dtd. 30/10/2015 and the reason for rejecting the other documents explained in Ext.P6 communication dtd. 9/11/2015. Being dissatisfied with the explanation, petitioner submitted Exts.P8 and P9 requests for making available the other 6 documents and to summon the additional witnesses. The request was rejected vide proceedings dtd. 10/12/2015, the date on which the examination of witnesses commenced. Although the petitioner and his Defence Assistant were present in the inquiry chamber, they did not cooperate with the inquiry and left the place when Dr.Maya entered the Chamber for the purpose of giving evidence. After completing the chief examination of Dr.Maya, the inquiry was posted to 12/12/2015. In the meanwhile, the petitioner made a written representation to the third respondent expressing lack of confidence in the Inquiry Officer and requesting to stop the inquiry proceedings. The petitioner also filed W.P.(C) No.38260 of 2015 challenging the proceedings. That writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.R2(c) judgment dtd. 17/12/2015. The challenge against the inquiry having failed, three more witnesses were examined on 21/12/2015. In spite of Dr.Maya being present for cross examination again, the petitioner refused to cross-examine that witness on the premise that it was impossible for his Defence Assistant to travel from Chennai to Cochin within the short span of time granted. Relenting to the petitioner's request, the cross- examination of Dr.Maya was adjourned to 22/12/2015 and the Defence Assistant was asked to travel either by road or air, so as to be present for the proceedings. In spite of granting such opportunity, the petitioner and the Defence Assistant failed to appear for cross examining the witness. Consequently, the petitioner was set ex parte and the inquiry continued.

(3.) Aggrieved by continuance of the inquiry after setting him ex-parte, the petitioner preferred Ext.P17 appeal before the Commerce Secretary and Appellate Authority, Government of India. In the meanwhile, the inquiry was concluded and written submissions were submitted by the presenting officer and the petitioner. Thereafter, Ext.P21 report of inquiry was submitted on 16/2/2016, finding the charges levelled against the petitioner to have been proved through oral and documentary evidence. The inquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner for offering his opinion on the findings therein. Accordingly, petitioner submitted Exts.P22 and P23 written submissions. In the meanwhile, the petitioner challenged the inquiry report in W.P. (C) No.6162 of 2016. After considering the findings in the inquiry report and the written submission, the third respondent passed Ext.P24 order on 22/4/2016, finding the petitioner guilty and consequently, dismissing him from the service of MPEDA with immediate effect. W.P.C) No.6162 of 2016 was disposed of thereafter as per Ext.P25 judgment, reserving the petitioner's liberty to urge the grounds in a fresh writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.21040 of 2016, which was disposed of by Ext.P34(b) judgment dtd. 19/2/2021, relegating the petitioner to the appellate remedy under Rule 24 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commerce Secretary, but the same was dismissed as per Ext.P1 (a) order dtd. 15/7/2021. Aggrieved this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;