RADHESHYAM RAMSURAT CHOUBEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 12/1/2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original Application No.201/170/2019 filed by petitioner, has been rejected.

(2.) Petitioner filed an original application challenging the chargesheet dtd. 11/9/2018 issued under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Petitioner also challenged the order dtd. 3/1/2019 regarding appointment of Inquiry Officer.

(3.) Facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Scientific Officer/C on 1/8/1984 in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai and thereafter he was transferred to Raja Ramanna Centre for Advance Technology (in short 'RRCAT'), Indore on 24/9/1984. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Scientific Officer/D on 1/8/1989 and at present he is working as Scientific Officer/D in RRCAT. On 11/9/2018 a chargesheet has been issued to the petitioner alleging that during the period from 1/6/2016 to 19/7/2016 the petitioner has misused his internet access provided by RRCAT on his official user ID by lodging fake grievances in the name of several persons including RRCAT employees and their spouses on the Public Grievances Portal of the Government of India and therefore, has failed to maintain integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant. The matter was also referred to the Madhya Pradesh State Cyber Cell for investigation and Cyber Cell has submitted its report on 18/1/2017 and subsequently a case has been registered against the petitioner under Sec. 66-D and 66-C of Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet on 27/9/2018 denying the allegations levelled against him. It is submitted that without considering reply to the chargesheet, respondents have initiated the enquiry proceedings by appointing an Inquiry officer. Petitioner has challenged the impugned chargesheet on the ground of competence of the issuing authority. It is submitted that petitioner is a Group A Officer and the President of India is the appointing authority of petitioner whereas chargesheet has been issued by the Secretary to Government of India which is an incompetent authority. The second ground of challenge is on the ground that in the similar facts and circumstances, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner under Sec. 66C and 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000 wherein charges and witnesses are one and the same and therefore, continuation of departmental enquiry will prejudice the criminal case of the petitioner.