V. M. SHAMSUDDIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein was working as Director of Agriculture, Union Territory of Lakshadweep. While so, in July 1994 a case was registered against him by the Special Police Establishment of the Central Bureau of Investigation regarding criminal conspiracy and misuse of official position in awarding a contract for supply of rat poison for an amount of Rs. 17,34,000/- in violation of the extant purchase rules thereby causing pecuniary advantage to the supplier in that case. In the investigation, the allegation was found to be prima facie established against the petitioner and regular departmental proceedings were recommended against the petitioner. It was recommended to initiate proceedings under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Charge sheet was accordingly forwarded to he Chief Vigilance Officer in the Union Territory Administration of Lakshadweep from the Office of Director or Vigilance, New Delhi on 30-6-1997 with a request to serve the same on the petitioner since proceedings have to be initiated under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules read with Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules.

(2.) Indisputedly the charge sheet was served on the petitioner only on 1-8-1997 after the date of his superannuation. Petitioner was superannuated on 30-6-1997. Petitioner therefore approached the Central Administrative Tribunal stating that the proceedings initiated against him after his retirement is illegal and male fide. Respondents department resisted the petition contending that the charge was investigated and investigation report was submitted to the Central Vigilance Commission and the Commission had advised initiation of major penalty proceedings against the petitioner. Further it was also stated that the charge sheet was issued on 30-06-1997 before the retirement of the petitioner. Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in Delhi Development Authority v. H.C. Khurana,1993 2 LLJ 302 ; Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, 1966 1 LLJ 458 ; Union of India and Ors. v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and Ors., 1998 2 LLJ 748 etc. and took the view that since charge sheet was issued on 30-6-1997 and even though it was served subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner the department has got the right to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Tribunal took the view that the date of receipt of the charge sheet by the petitioner is of no consequence, and what is relevant is the date of issue of charge sheet. Charge sheet was issued on 30-6-1997 therefore the Tribunal took the view that the department has rightly initiated proceedings under the CCS (CCA) Rules.

(3.) We may at the out express our anguish and dissatisfaction in the manner in which, the Department Officials including the Vigilance has acted in this case. There has been considerable latches on the part of the department and its officials in initiating proceedings against the petitioner. On going through the entire facts of the case we have got a feeling that there has been an attempt at some level to see that the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner should go in default. Charges levelled against him is of serious nature and it is very unfortunate that the officials involved in this case has shown considerable lethargy and gave room for the petitioner to escape from the clutches of law. Charge sheet was sent from Delhi Office on 30-6-1997 which was served on the petitioner only on 1-8-1997. Disciplinary proceedings can be initiated after serving the memo of charges on the person as provided under Sub-rules 4 and 6 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. Relevant portion of the same reads as follows: