RAHUL KAUSHIK Vs. THE SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & IT, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 110 001

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner belongs to Indian Postal Service. Placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath reported in 2014 (1) SCC 351 , Mr. R. Malaichamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of Charge Memorandum No. 11-02/2011-Vig.(P.11), dated 16.07.2013, were not approved by the Hon'ble Minister, a mandatory requirement under Rule 14(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the Tribunal ought to have granted the reliefs, sought for in the Original Application. He raised further grounds that the petitioner was not supplied with additional documents; though the names of certain witnesses were mentioned in the charge memo, they were not examined; the inquiry officer, hastily short-circuited the procedure; and his report has not been authenticated by the competent authority, as per the CCS (CCA) Rules.

(2.) The Assistant Director (Vig &Inv), Office of the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai has filed a detailed counter affidavit. Based on the same, Mr. V. Balasubramanian, learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that as per Rule 3 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, subject to the provisions of these Rules in regard to consultation with other departments and submission of cases to the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and its Committees and the President, all business allotted to a department under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1961, shall be disposed of by, or under the general or special directions of the Minister-in-charge. He further submitted that a decision to place the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect, consulting CVC, for initiating major penalty proceedings against the petitioner, was taken by the Hon'ble Minister of State (C & IT) on 24.04.2012 itself, and accordingly, the petitioner was placed under suspension, vide order, dated 27.4.2012.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Central Vigilance Commission, vide O.M. No. 01l/P &T/035-192093, dated 26.10.2012, has advised initiation of major penalty proceedings against the petitioner. Thereafter, a draft charge memo, under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, was put up to the disciplinary authority viz., the Hon'ble Minister of State (C & IT), on 24.6.2013, which has been specifically mentioned in column 8 of the proforma, submitted to the Hon'ble Minister and that he has approved the said draft charge memo on 8. 7.2013. Accordingly, charge memo under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, was issued against the petitioner on 16.7.2013. After completion of the inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report on 7.1.2016, holding both the articles of charge levelled against the petitioner, as proved. The inquiry officer's report was put up to the disciplinary authority viz., Hon'ble Minister of State (C & IT), vide notings on 30.3.2016, with the proposals, viz., (i) to agree with the findings of the inquiry report (ii) forwarding Inquiry Officer's report to the charged officer for submitting his written representation within 15 days and (iii) further ancillary action. The Hon'ble Minister of State (C & IT), has approved the above proposals on 7.5.2016 and accordingly, the Inquiry Officer's report was forwarded to the petitioner on 21.6.2016 and again on 21.7.2016. To substantiate the above said contentions, files have been produced.