SHRINARAYAN OJHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred challenging the order dtd. 15/4/2015 in O.A.No.798/2012 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, Camp Indore seeking following reliefs:

(2.) Facts in brief are that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of skilled worker-I on 15/7/1994 and discharged his duties sincerely, diligently and to best of his abilities on the post of Technician- I. While he was on leave from 26/7/2010 to 2/8/2010, a false and frivolous complaint was made by one Alok Sharma on 21/7/2010 which came to be received in the office of the respondent no.3 on 29/7/2010 along with another complaint made on similar line by one Ashok Kumar Sharma, brother of said Alok Sharma alleging that certain ex-students of Indo German Tool Room i.e. Dinesh Choudhary, Gautam Rajwar and Santosh Paswan were demanding a sum of Rs.40,000.00 from them under duress and threat administered to them. Upon this complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by a committee constituted by respondent no.3 which submitted its report on 30/7/2010. The enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. On 5/8/2010 the respondent no.3 summoned the petitioner through one R.K.Sharma in his office and coerced and forced the petitioner to tender an apology under the threat of facing dire consequences. However, soon after recovering from the threat and the coercion administered to him at the hands of respondent no.3 and said R.K.Sharma, the petitioner immediately submitted a representation dtd. 9/8/2010 addressed to respondent no.3 narrating the entire circumstances under which he was forced to sign the aforesaid apology letter without there being any fault on his part. Upon this representation again a preliminary enquiry was conducted by a committee constituted by respondent no.3 and the committee in its report dtd. 26/8/2010 found the apology of the petitioner to be obtained by the respondent no.3 and said R.K.Sharma under duress. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dtd. 9/9/2010 calling upon him to offer his explanation with regard to the aforesaid incident and the petitioner in his detailed and exhaustive reply dtd. 15/9/2010 again narrated the entire circumstances and pleaded his innocence in the matter. The reply of the petitioner did not find favour of the respondent no.3, who in turn has issued the petitioner a charge sheet dtd. 29/9/2010 leveling false and frivolous charges of demand illegal gratification of Rs.40,000.00 from one Dinesh Choudhary through Gautam Rajwar in the presence of Santosh Paswan on 17/7/2010 and turning hostile after submitting his apology on 5/8/2010 and denying the same by subsequent representation dtd. 9/8/2010 thereby violating the provisions of Indo German Tool Room Model (Conduct) Rules, 1993.

(3.) The petitioner submitted his tentative reply to the aforesaid charge sheet on 19/10/2010 inasmuch as the petitioner was not supplied the requisite documents along with the charge sheet, even the charge sheet was not containing any imputation of misconduct, list of documents on the basis of which the charge leveled against the petitioner were proposed to be proved, list of witnesses whose deposition was to be considered in the departmental enquiry. Thus, the entire vague and incomplete charge sheet was issued to the petitioner without having its essential limbs. During the course of departmental enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dtd. 22/10/2010 and he remain as such till conclusion of the departmental enquiry. On the advice of enquiry officer, a list of defence/additional documents was handed over to him on 21/4/2011, the date on which enquiry was fixed. Later on vide his letter dtd. 25/4/2011 the enquiry officer confirmed that the aforesaid list of document has already been taken on record. Most of the 16 requisite documents contained in the list of documents were closely connected with the case of the petitioner. These documents have ever been used by the Presiding Officer or referred during the course of enquiry proceedings but instead of supplying these documents, the petitioner was forced to cross examine 3 management witnesses and thereafter the enquiry officer had declared enquiry to be concluded in a great hot haste denying the petitioner reasonable opportunity to defend himself, violating the principles of natural justice and fair play and causing serious prejudice to the petitioner in the matter of his defence. The enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and fair play wherein the witnesses from both the sides were appeared and deposed, behind the back of the petitioner. None of the prosecution witnesses has supported the case of the department. Even the eye witness to the transaction Santosh Paswan categorically denied the alleged transaction to be taken place in his presence. The enquiry officer on his own whims and caprice has not called independent witnesses for cross examination and collected evidence by travelling beyond the scope of charge sheet and recorded his ipse dixit in the enquiry report prepared by him on 10/5/2011 relying on 3 management witnesses only, out of which one was not made available for cross examination and remaining two were not cross examined by the petitioner for want of documents.