C.J.JOSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The course pursued by the Tribunal by passing Ext.P1 order in O.A.No.180/00786/2015 declining to deal with the merits of the case with reference to the correctness and sustainability of Annexure A1 charge sheet, but for directing the authorities concerned to finalise the proceedings within a specified time as ordered therein, is the subject matter of challenge in this Original Petition.

(2.) The petitioner joined service of the CPWD as Jr. Engineer, way back on 12.11.1979. It is stated that he subsequently came to be promoted as Assistant Engineer and was working in the said post, drawing the maximum salary payable under the particular scale (which is stated as more than the pay packet of the Executive Engineer) right from 2003 and it became still higher from 2009.

(3.) The petitioner purchased a small extent of land, i.e. 4.05 Ares ( about 10 cents) for valuable sale consideration in October, 2012, from a stranger. But the sale could be intimated to the departmental authorities only on 10.09.2012. On submitting the intimation as above, the petitioner was required to submit explanation as to why 'prior approval' was not obtained, vide communication issued on 18.10.2012. Annexure A4 notice was issued directing the Superintending Engineer to get the particulars from the petitioner in respect of the above transaction, upon which the Superintending Engineer issued Annexure A5 dated 29.01.2013. Though in Annexure A4 notice, the extent of land was shown as only 04.05 Ares, when Annexure A5 came to be issued by the Superintending Engineer, it was wrongly shown as 4.05 Acres. As a matter of fact, according to the petitioner, no prior permission is necessary from the department, but for giving prior intimation, it being a purchase from a stranger. Annexure A6 is the explanation given on 07.02.2013. Thereafter, vide Annexure A7, additional explanation was sought for, which was furnished as per Annexure A8 dated 03.03.2013. Without properly appreciating the facts and figures, Annexure A9 show-cause notice came to be issued on 03.07.2013 by the Chief Engineer at New Delhi, as to why further action shall not be pursued against the petitioner. The position was sought to be explained vide Annexure A10 reply dated 17.07.2013 and the matter was left there without any further course of action. Later, when steps were about to be taken to effect promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, somebody behind the curtain moved strings to precipitate the issue and caused to issue Annexure A1 charge sheet dated 18.07.2014 with intent to proceed with the enquiry under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 1965. The petitioner submitted Annexure A11 reply, wherein he fairly conceded as to the non-submission of 'prior intimation' to the Department, which was sought to be explained with reference to the illness of his wife, marriage of his son and such other mitigating circumstances.