A K ROY CHOUDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by a Central Government employee who was working as the Divisional Engineer Telegraphs at Bhavnagar at the relevant time and who as per the impugned order Annexure D dated 16-12-78 has been compulsorily retired from service by way of penalty at the conclusion of the departmental proceedings initiated against him in respect of various charges set out at the Chargesheet Annexure A to the petition. The order has been passed by the Deputy Director General by order and in the name of the President of India. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the said order of compulsory retirement.

(2.) There were levelled against the petitioner as many as eight charges. The eighth charge pertained to his having accepted as a motive or reward for showing favours to two private firms certain things of value set out in clauses (a)(b) and (c) of the charge no. 8 but seven other charges are pertaining to the violation of the Departmental Rules and committing certain gross irregularities alleged to have caused considerable loss to the department. The Enquiry Officer made his report Annexure B at the conclusion of the first stage of the proceedings. Then the second show cause notice was given to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why the major penalty should not be imposed on him. Ultimately the impugned order Annexure D came to be passed. The order was challenged on three grounds. The first ground was that when the charge of accepting illegal gratification from the two firms concerned was not proved the alleged irregularities which were ultimately said to have been committed for the benefit of those two firms could not be sustained. The second contention was that the various witnesses were brought at the time of the enquiry but they were not examined in chief as required under Rule 14. 14 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct Classification and Appeal) Rules 1665 It was alleged that the statements of these witnesses who are the persons from the department itself had come to be recorded by the Chief Vigilance Commissioner in the course of the preliminary enquiry and when the witnesses came to be examined at the time of the departmental enquiry the presenting officer simply asked them whether they had made such statements before the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and on their saying yes they were asked to sign those statements and then they were offered for cross examination. It is the contention of the petitioner in this petition that this nonexamination of the witnesses in chief at the stage of the enquiry vitiated the proceedings. The third contention which in my view is a substantial one is that the report was sent to the disciplinary authority through the Chief Vigilance Commissioner who as per the Government practice is required to tender confidential comments and recommendations for the purpose of giving impartial independent and technical advice to the disciplinary authority in disciplinary cases related to gazetted officers and also advising what penalty should be imposed. The petitioner complained that if the disciplinary authority took this matter into account without affording an opportunity to him to have benefit of what the said Chief Vigilance Commissioner stated he was deprived of the benefit of the principle a audi alteram partem which would go to the root of the impugned order.

(3.) I find considerable force in the last of the three points urged on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Ajmera for the petitioner. His grievance in this regard is to be found in paragraphs 7A and 10A of the petition. In paragraph 7A the petitioner has specifically stated as follows: