VINAY KUMAR RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Vinay Kumar Rai
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
Akil Kureshi,J. -
(1.) The petitioner has challenged an order dated 13.08.2015 passed by the DIG (CR & Vigilance) of Central Reserved Police Force (CRPF, for short), Ministry of Home Affairs by which he imposed a punishment on the petitioner of reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect which order the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged since his appeal was dismissed on 17.03.2016.
(2.) The facts are as under:
In the year 2006-07 the petitioner was posted as a Commandant, 41 Bn, CRPF and he was asked to function as a Presiding Officer of a Recruitment Board of the Eastern Sector for recruitment of Constable (Technical)/Tradesmen at Group Centre, CRPF, Durgapur conducted between 26.12.2006 to 06.01.2007. Nearly two and a half years after completion of the recruitment process, the department issued a chargesheet dated 13.08.2009 which contained following sole charge:
That the said Shri V.K. Rai, Commandant, 41 Bn, CRPF while functioning as Presiding Officer of recruitment board detailed by IG Eastern Sector vide Signal No.R.II- 4/2006-ES-Adm.I dated 30/11/2006 for recruitment of Constable (Technical)/Tradesmen at Group Centre, CRPF, Durgapur during the period from 26/12/2006 to 06/1/2007, committed an act of serious misconduct in that he favoured some candidate by making alterations and amendments in a motivated manner in the records pertaining to trade test, physical measurement and Physical Efficiency Test for their final selection as Constable (Buglers) in an unfair. Thus, Shri V.K. Rai, Commandant, 41 Bn, CRPF has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to his duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant violating the provisions contained in Rule-3 (1), (i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS(Conduct) Rule, 1964.'
(3.) A perusal of statement of imputation of misconduct would show that according to the department the petitioner had unauthorisedly and maliciously carried out corrections, overwritings and changes in the result sheets of several candidates who had appeared in such recruitment process. According to the department, these alterations were carried out with a mala fide intention. It was, therefore, alleged that the petitioner did not conduct the test in a fair and impartial manner and on account of which deserving candidates were deprived of the selection and physical examinations and trade test were tampered to favour some of the candidates unlawfully. The petitioner thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and his conduct was thus unbecoming of a Government servant. The petitioner denied the charges upon which a departmental inquiry was conducted. After detailed inquiry the inquiry officer submitted his report dated 29.03.2012. Whatever be the reason, the disciplinary authority provided the copy of the inquiry officer's report to the petitioner under a letter dated 14.11.2012, i.e. nearly 9 months later. The covering letter under which the copy of inquiry officer's report was supplied reads as under:
'A Departmental Enquiry was ordered against you vide Presidential Memorandum No.D.IX-44/2008-CRC dated 13/8/2009, Shri Subhash Damle, DIG, CRPF was appointed as Inquiry Officer (I.O.) on 08/01/2010 to enquire into the charges framed against you. The I.O. has completed the enquiry and submitted his report.
2. I have been directed to forward a copy of report of Inquiry Officer to you with the direction that you may submit representation if any, on the Inquiry Officer's report within 15 days from the date of receipt of the report. The Disciplinary Authority will take a suitable decision in the case on receipt of your reply on the report. If no reply is received within stipulated time it would be presumed that you have nothing to say and further necessary action, as deemed fit will be taken.' ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.