ASHOK C. PARKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant joined service as Assistant District Attorney -cum -Government Pleader in the prosecution and Litigation Department of State of Punjab w.e.f. 23.1.1979. Subsequently, he joined as Executive Officer, Class -I, Department of Local Government, Punjab (Chandigarh) w.e.f. 21.7.1989 as a direct recruit and worked in such capacity till 15th September, 1992. Thereafter, he joined the Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs) as Assistant Legal Adviser, where he got promotion as Deputy Legal Adviser w.e.f. 13.9.2001. He also got next promotion in Indian Legal Service i.e. to the post of Addl. Legal Adviser and completed his probation. He had unblemished service record of more than 32 years. Nevertheless, in the year 2001, the applicant was selected for his appointment as Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and he joined the post at Coimbatore. In the year 2004, when the applicant requested for repatriation to his parent organization, the Joint Secretary (AR), Ministry of Finance suggested for relieving him of the duty as Presiding Officer. As a result, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Banking Division) issued Notification dated 27.2.2004 placing the services of the applicant at the disposal of Department of Legal Affairs w.e.f. 29.2.2004 (AN). In the year 2008, the President issued Memorandum No. 13011/10/2003 - Vig. dated 28.7.2008 proposing to hold an inquiry against the applicant under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 in a matter pertaining to amassing of wealth/assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the period when he was on deputation as Presiding Officer in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore from 4.12.2001 to 27.1.2004. The statement of article of charge framed against the applicant read as under:

(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the record. Having gone through the contents of the charges and the guidelines issued by the CVC, we are satisfied that the Disciplinary Authority ought to have applied its mind to the allegation against the applicant in the chargesheet before institution of the proceedings against him or/and at least when the applicant had made a detailed representation dated 2.5.2011 to it, it ought to have appreciated the same objectively before continuing the proceedings instituted vide impugned chargesheet. In Rule 14(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, it is provided that the Disciplinary Authority shall require the Government servant to submit a written statement of defence against the article of charges and state whether he desires to be heard in person. Vide G.I. M.H.A., O.M. No. 11012/2/79 -Estt. (A) dated 12.3.1981 and O.M. No. 11012/8/82 -Estt. (A) dated 8.12.1982, it is specifically provided that the Disciplinary Authority has the inherent power to review and modify the article of charges or drop some of the charges or all the charges after the receipt and examination of the written statement of defence submitted by the accused Government servant under Rule 14(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. For easy reference, said OM is extracted here -in -below: - -

(3.) TAKING note of the aforesaid arguments and in order to reduce compliance costs of a large strata of honest officers, the Commission has observed that its punishment policy with regard to intimations would be as follows: