ALOK GOYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a member of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in the Jharkhand Cadre. While he was posted as Vice Chairman of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (RRDA), renovation work of Ranchi Town Hall was undertaken. Complaints regarding alleged financial irregularities and violation of rules and procedures committed in the renovation work were received. In pursuance of the direction contained in the letter dated 28.1.2000 of the Commissioner to the Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, an internal fact finding enquiry was conducted by Sri Phool Singh, the then Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. The enquiry officer submitted his report recommending initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner.

(2.) ON the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, the service of the petitioner was placed under the State of Jharkhand. Consequently, the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer was forwarded to the State of Jharkhand on 11.3.2002. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply on the report of the enquiry officer. The reply submitted by the petitioner was found not satisfactory where after a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The memorandum of charges dated 29.10.2004 was served upon the petitioner. Mr. Sukhdeo Singh, a senior IAS officer was appointed as the enquiring officer. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. The enquiring officer submitted his report dated 22.12.2005 with his finding that out of 16 charges, nine charges were fully proved, three partially proved and four not proved. A copy of the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. On the basis of the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, the State Government proposed to impose punishment upon the petitioner. However, before imposing punishment, the advice/approval of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) was sought for by the State Government in accordance with the All India Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1919. After obtaining the advice and approval of the UPSC, the State Government decided to impose punishment on the petition by way of reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale for three years without cumulative effect. 2. The petitioner initially preferred an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing the charge -sheet and the enquiry report dated 22.12.2005 and also for quashing the departmental proceedings initiated against him. Later, by amendment of his original application, the petitioner sought an additional prayer for quashing the punishment imposed against him in the departmental proceeding.

(3.) THE respondents contested the petitioners prayer before the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioners application should not be entertained since he has not exhausted the alternative remedy available to him under the All India Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules against the order of the disciplinary authority.