STATE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MA /42/2013 for condoning delay is allowed. The applicant while working as TOA under the Telecom District Manager Bhavnagar in 1993 is alleged to have caused a pecuniary loss of Rs. 16,29,584/ - to the Department of Telecommunications in connection with the purchase of some materials on the pretext of carrying out maintenance of drop wires and GI transmission lines, violating the extant DOT instructions and policies and thereby alleged to have contravened Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) and (iii) CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The applicant was proceeded against for the aforesaid misconduct resulting in an inquiry report marked as Annexure -A/6 dated 30.7.2005. According to the applicant, the Inquiry Officer had concluded the inquiry proceedings after examining witnesses and after due procedure came to the conclusion that the charges have not been proved. Annexure A/6 inquiry report was given to him alongwith Annexure -A/5 communication dated 31.12.2005. Thereafter applicant had been requesting the Disciplinary Authority to exonerate him on the basis of Annexure -A/6 inquiry report, yet no order was passed thereon by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority communicated Annexure -A/8 letter dated 9.7.2009 (at Page 66 of the paper book) informing him that another Inquiry Officer namely Shri S.D. Pandya has been appointed under the provisions of Sub -rule (2) read with Sub -rule (22) of Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant made Annexure -A/9 representation (at Page 68 of the paper book) but no action was taken by the respondents and hence the applicant has approached this Tribunal with this O.A. seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) RESPONDENT Nos. 2 and 3 filed reply stating that the inquiry report submitted was under consideration and that as per Annexure -R/2 letter dated 20.10.2008 it was decided to conduct the inquiry again from the stage of examination of documents and witnesses. Although 70 witnesses were cited alongwith charge -sheet, Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer examined a very limited number of witnesses. It is further contended that the decision of the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a proper inquiry again was not illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory.

(3.) A rejoinder was filed by the applicant refuting contentions of the respondents and reiterating the pleadings in the OA. The applicant contends that appointment of another Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer are irregular.