V K SAJNANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17/10/2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (the Tribunal for short) whereby the order dated 7. 3. 2002 imposing penalty of stoppage of next increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect has been upheld.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case, emerging from a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition are that the petitioner was serving as a Divisional Engineer (Planning) in the office of General Manager, Baroda Telecom District during the relevant period of time when a chargesheet dated 10. 11. 1999 was issued upon him. The petitioner was a member of the Stores Purchase Committee and he was proceeded against departmentally on the charges of irregularly recommending the local purchase of one truckload of GI pipes by ignoring the tenders already received, at rates higher than the DG, Sandd Rate Contract. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who, after following the due procedure, found that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The Assistant Director General (Vigilance), New Delhi, by letter dated 15. 3. 2001 forwarded a copy of the Enquiry Report to the petitioner, calling upon him to make his representation, if any, which was done by the petitioner. After considering the representation of the petitioner, the Assistant Director (Vigilance), by order dated 7. 3. 2002, imposed the penalty of withholding of next increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 208 of 2002, which has been dismissed by order dated 17. 10. 2003, giving rise to the present petition.

(3.) IT is relevant to notice that earlier, a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Bhawani Singh, C. J. (as he then was) and H. K. Rathod, J.), vide order dated 14. 12. 2005 allowed the petition on the short ground that the non-supply of UPSC advice to the petitioner to make a representation against the same before the final order of penalty was passed, has resulted in vitiating the proceedings against the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 7. 3. 2002, imposing penalty upon the petitioner was set aside. The respondent - Union of India approached the Supreme Court by filing S. L. P. (C) No. 12656 of 2006 against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. The Supreme Court, by judgment dated 19. 4. 2007, observed that in view of its decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar (1993)4 SCC 727, the provisions of Article 320 (3) (c) of the Constitution of India are not mandatory and do not confer any right on the public servant so that the absence of consultation or any irregularity in the consultation process or furnishing a copy of the advice tendered by the UPSC, if any, does not afford the delinquent Government servant a cause of action in a Court of law. In the ultimate analysis, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the petition to the file of the High Court, with a direction to decide the other grounds urged before the High Court and dispose of the matter, in accordance with law. It is in this background that the matter has been placed before us.