SUDHIR CHOPRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 impugning five orders issued by the respondents bearing No. 106/8/DGDE/APAR/2010/44/PC -1;

(2.) No.106/8/DGDE/APAR/2010/44/PC -2; No. 106/8/DGDE/APAR/2010/44/PC -3; No. 106/8/DGDE/APAR/2010/44/PC -4 & No. 106/8/DGDE/APAR/2010/44/PC -5 all dated 29.02.2012, informing him that his representations against ACRs for the period 2000 -01 to 2005 -06 have been considered by the respondent No. 1 i.e. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, in compliance of the Tribunal's orders dated 09.02.2012 passed in OA No. 3677/2011 and rejected. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s): - -

(3.) BEFORE coming to the factual matrix of the case, it is pertinent to mention here that this is the 8th round of litigation between the applicant and the respondents. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was an officer of Indian Defence Estate Service (1980 batch), who retired on superannuation on 29.02.2012 from JAG post without getting further promotions to SAG and HAG. It may be stated that the applicant is a self -proclaimed whistle blower, who claims to have reported about motivated and fraudulent handling of cases by senior officers in the office of respondent No. 2. He also claims to have informed the respondent No. 1 and the CVC pertaining to such shoddy and fraudulent dealing in cases like Maharaja of Kota land case; Ahmedabad House Ballard Estate Mumbai case, COD Kandivali land scam case etc., and it was on this account he fell victim to hostile discrimination and was posted to Shillong in the year 2000 after he had lodged a formal complaint with CVC in June, 2000. He was retained at Shillong for almost a period of five years against the prescribed tenure of two years that too without any work, charter of duties and even minimum required staff like Peon and Stenographers. During this period, he had also been given additional charge of Defence Estate Officer but the same was abruptly withdrawn within a short period of six months after he had unearthed another massive fraud which came to be known as Union of India versus State of Assam. On 01.04.2005, the applicant was posted on a faculty position in National Institute of Defence Estate Management [hereinafter referred to as NIDEM]. Soon after, the respondent No. 4 one C.R. Mahapatra, against whom the applicant had filed five complaints earlier in respect of Ahmedabad House Hiring case and the respondent No. 1 had ordered investigation into the matter, became Director General of NIDEM. In retaliation, the applicants submits, the respondent No. 4 recommended applicant's compulsory retirement implicating him in a false case and was instrumental in getting chargesheet issued against him on totally false, frivolous and absurd charges including signing of letters as Joint Director and not For Director and also writing a letter to Transparency International India to supply their free of cost publication titled India Corruption Studies to improve governance, etc. The applicant further submits that proceedings against him were deliberately prolonged so as to deny him promotion to SAG as would be evident from file notings at page 146 -2004. The disciplinary proceedings for minor penalty which should have been decided in two months in 2007 itself, but were closed in 2011 without imposing any penalty as false, frivolous and absurd charges could not be proved. Initially a penalty of censure had been imposed upon him on 17.06.2008 which was quashed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 13.01.2009 passed in OA No. 819/2008 directing the disciplinary authority to consider the charge afresh and pass a speaking and reasoned order. The disciplinary authority finally disposed of the proceedings on 01.02.2011 without having imposed any penalty since no charges could be proved. In the meantime, due to contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, his ACRs with un -communicated remarks were placed before the DPC whose recommendations were placed in a sealed cover. The adverse remarks contained in the applicant's ACRs were never communicated to him, as claimed by the applicant. Even after closure of the disciplinary proceedings in favour of the applicant, in February, 2011, the sealed cover had never been opened and the applicant was compelled to approach the Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide order dated 15.07.2011 passed in OA No. 2515/2011, directed the respondents to open the sealed cover of the applicant and give effect to that. Consequently, the applicant was conveyed that the DPCs held in 2007 and 2009 had not found him fit for promotion to SAG. Aggrieved, the applicant challenged the decision of the DPC before the Tribunal by filing OA No. 3677/2011 on the ground that the adverse remarks in the ACRs had never been communicated to him and his ACRs were not placed before the reviewing/accepting authorities after undue delay to mar his career prospects and his representations against ACRs had summarily been rejected. While disposing of the aforesaid OA, the Tribunal directed the respondent No. 1 to decide the applicant's representations dispassionately within fifteen days but definitely before his superannuation on 29.02.2012.