N.M. SEHRAWAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS, DOPT NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, of this OA, is before us seeking the quashing of Office Order No.6333 dated 11.8.2011/12.8.2011 issued by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry proceedings against him. Through the impugned order, it was stated by the Enquiry Officer as follows: - No. 6333 Deptt. Enquiry/10/EO -III/7315/ND dated 11/12.08.2011 Proceedings dated 11.08.2011 against N.M. Sherawat, Inspector (U/S), CBI/EOU -IV/N.Delhi. I. Whereas the Departmental Proceedings against N.M. Sherawat has been fixed on this day i.e. 11.08.2011 for further enabling the C.O. to submit the list of defence documents and defence witnesses if any but he did not attend the enquiry on this date also. Earlier this opportunity was given to him on 3.08.2011 and 5.08.2011 but again he did not attend the enquiry. The charged officer N.M. Sherawat, was also informed vide proceedings dated 5.08.2011 that after the proceedings dated 11.08.2011, regular enquiry will commence on day today basis. II. Accordingly, initially the regular enquiry is fixed on day today basis for four days i.e. on 17.08.2011, 17.08.2011, 18.08.2011 and 19.08.2011. The enquiry fixed for 16.08.2011 will commence at 2 P.M. and the enquiry fixed for 17.08.2011 to 19.08.2011 will commence at 11 A.M. daily in the office of Enquiry Officer for prosecution evidence Notices to the following prosecution witnesses have been issued to depose their evidence in the enquiry on the given date and time as per below mentioned schedule.

(2.) Without presenting himself before the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry during the examination of prosecution witnesses fixed on 16.8.2011, 17.8.2011, 18.8.2011 and on 19.8.2011, the applicant presented this OA on 17.8.2011, and re -filed it on 18.8.2011, and the re -filed OA was accepted by the Registry on 19.8.2011, and fixed for hearing on 23.8.2011. During the hearing on 23.8.2011, the Bench that day stayed the impugned order of the Enquiry Officer for one week and thereafter, on 30.8.2011 the Interim Relief was continued till 20.10.2011. When the case came up for hearing on 20.10.2011, no orders were passed regarding continuation of interim relief, and the same position prevailed on 01.12.2011 and 24.1.2012 and 20.3.2012, till the case came to be argued on 21.3.2012 and reserved for orders. The only prayer by the applicant in this OA is to quash the Enquiry Officers Office Order No. 6333 Deptt. Enquiry/10/EO -III/7315/ND dated 11/12.08.2011, and the interim prayer was to keep the departmental enquiry in abeyance, which abeyance has apparently happened automatically, because of the interim order passed by this Tribunal, though the IR was not continued beyond 20.10.2011.

(3.) While working as Inspector of Police in EOU -VIII/EO -III Branch of CBI, New Delhi, the applicant was arrested by the CBI itself in a corruption case on 24.4.2006, and was placed under suspension under the appropriate Rules. This action was taken on the basis of the four FIRs lodged in the Court of Special Judge, (CBI), Delhi, under Section 173 CrPC on 24.04.2006 through Annexure A -1 (pages 12 to 59 of this OA). The issue of framing of charges in the four cases CC NO.45,46,47&48/2011 before the Special Judge -03, CBI, New Delhi, was decided by the learned Special Judge on 11.5.2011, through his order produced at pages 60 to 83 of the OA. The learned Special Judge had considered all the four cases separately and decided to frame charges against the applicant under Sections 8 &9 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the applicant in CC No.45/2011. Similar charges were decided to be framed by him against the applicant in CC No.46/2011 also. He had discharged the applicant in CC No.47/2011, and in respect of CC No.48/2011, the learned Special Judge found that the evidence gathered by the prosecution during investigation, and filed with the Charge Sheet, even though it had remained un -rebutted or un -controverted, but even if it is taken at their face value, it would not lead to ultimate conviction of the accused persons. He hastened to add that the conduct or misconduct on the part of the present applicant could be an act of moral turpitude inviting disciplinary action, but it was difficult for him to hold that it could take the shape of an offence defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC. As a result, the learned Special Judge had discharged the applicant herein in that fourth case. Accordingly, criminal charges were framed against the applicant, and the applicant pleaded not guilty, and claimed Trial in the two cases in which charges had been framed against him by the learned Special Judge. Much before this8 the respondents had already issued a notice to the applicant through A -2 dated 14.12.2009, proposing to hold a disciplinary enquiry against him relating to offences flowing out of the administrative lapses concerning the events covered in the four FIRs filed against him.