DR. C.P. RAI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the correctness and legality of the Final Report dated 21st Nov. 2015 holding the petitioners guilty of the charges and the consequential order dated 11th July 2016, whereby the punishment of reduction of three annual increments to the lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect was imposed, the instant petition is filed. The petitioners, stated to be working on regular establishment of different departments under the Government in various capacities, were served with memorandum of charge-sheet on 04th Feb., 2010 alleging that the petitioners have participated in a programme organized by political leaders at Rolu, South Sikkim on 21st Dec. 2009 and as such the same was violative of provisions of Rule 3(i) (c) of the Sikkim Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Conduct Rules"). The petitioners submitted their replies separately on 19.02.2010 (Annexure P-21), 30.03.2016 (Annexure P-22), 20.02.2010 (Annexure P-23), 08.09.2010 (Annexure P-24), 19.03.2016 (Annexure P-25), 10.03.2016 (Annexure P-26), 26.02.2010 (Annexure P-27), 18.02.2010 (Annexure P-28), 03.03.2010 (Annexure P-29), 25.02.2010 (Annexure P-30), 24.02.2010 (Annexure P-31), 20.02.2010 (Annexure P-32), 03.03.2010 (Annexure P-33), dated nil (Annexure P-34), 12.03.2016 (Annexure P-35), dated nil (Annexure P-36), 26.02.2016 (Annexure P-37) and 20.02.2016 (Annexure P-38) respectively. The third respondent was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and recorded the deposition of all the petitioners. Considering the deposition, held the petitioners as guilty on the basis that "there is an admission in his deposition of having met political personalities (MLA, Shri P.S. Golay) who was present at the political gathering, it is amply clear that the Charged Official came there to meet him and therefore, by implication despite his denial it has been proved by his own admission that he met the political personalities," supported by an intelligence report. The appointing authority, accepting the Enquiry Report, imposed penalty, as afore stated, by impugned order dated 11th July 2016.

(2.) Mr. Moulik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been held guilty of misconduct of being unbecoming of a Government servant without proving the allegation of charge. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not admitted any misconduct of having participated in a political meeting knowingly with intention. It is further contended that the petitioners have been there as had gone for a picnic on a holiday, when they noticed that there was a meeting, some of the leaders were known to them and as such they met them. The petitioners were not aware that there was a political gathering/meeting. Their presence was neither intentional nor was there any active participation in the meeting. They are not a member of any political party. The Enquiry Officer had held the petitioners guilty after long about five years without examining the allegation made against them. Rule 6 of the Conduct Rules prohibits taking part in politics and election. Note 3 appended to the afore-stated Rule clearly provides that attendance at meetings organized by a political party would be construed as contravening if all the three conditions, stated therein, are satisfied, namely, the meeting was a public meeting and not in any sense a private or restricted meeting; the meeting was not held contrary to any prohibitory order or without permission where permission was needed and the Government servant in question does not himself speak at, or take active or prominent part in organizing or conducting the meeting. Even if the petitioners have participated unknowingly, there is no proof that the petitioners had either spoken in the meeting or taken active part in organizing and conducting the meeting. In such view of the matter, it was wrongly held that the petitioners have taken part in political meeting which is unbecoming of a Government servant under Rule 3 (i) (c) of the Conduct Rules.

(3.) Mr. Moulik would further contend that the Enquiry Officer has held the petitioners guilty on the basis of alleged admission which was never done without examining the relevant witnesses on a conjuncture, stating therein that there was an intelligence report which was neither referred to nor examined and a copy of the same was also not furnished to the petitioners affording an opportunity of hearing, before holding the petitioners guilty. Mr. Moulik would also contend that the respondent-authorities had adopted pick and choose policy. Certain government employees, namely, Man Bahadur Tamang, Teacher, Bimal Kharel, Teacher, C.K. Rai, Teacher, Milan Rai, Teacher, M.N. Sherpa, LDC, Tarka Man Tamang, Constable, were also served show-cause notices for the same charge and without imposing any punishment, they were permitted to retire voluntarily. Other persons, namely, M.K. Subba and Basant Kumar Rai, who in fact participated in the meeting under the banner of opposite political party repeatedly and spoke against the Government, they were, without any enquiry, promoted to the superior post. This conduct of the Government authorities clearly speak of biased attitude towards the petitioners. In such view of the matter, the Enquiry Report deserves to be quashed and the consequential order of punishment be also set aside.