Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) - (1.) THIS O.A. has been filed seeking the following relief: - (i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 22.11.2011. (ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned second charge sheet dated 16.05.2012. (iii) Alternative relief: In case for any reasons, the Hon'ble Tribunal not granting the above prayed relief (i) the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to complete the departmental proceedings in respect of the charge sheet dated 22.11.2011 at an early date within the specified period failing which the enquiry proceedings should be treated as closed or should be abated.
(2.) THIS case was earlier disposed of vide our order dated 29.10.2013. Thereafter, on the basis of Review Application No. 216/2013 filed by the O.A. applicant, it was restored for fresh adjudication. The facts of the case, as brought out in Para -2 and Para -2.1 of our earlier judgment, are reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience: - 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed to the post of Sub -Inspector (Computer & Systems) in the National Crime Records Bureau Ministry of Home Affairs on 12.02.1991. Gradually he got promoted and became Dy. Director w.e.f. 29.04.2010. On 22.02.2011 he alongwith other Dy. Directors was asked to visit respective Data Centres and complete the tasks assigned to them. The applicant was sent to Guwahati Centre. He returned from there on 22.02.2011. However, many months later a minor penalty charge sheet under Article 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to him vide Memorandum dated 22.11.2011. Attached along with the same was an Article of Charge stating amongst other things that the applicant had disobeyed the instructions of his superiors and committed dereliction of his official duties thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii) & 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The applicant submitted a detailed reply on 30.11.2011 and another representation on 09.12.2011. When no reply was forthcoming from the respondents the applicant submitted a representation on 09.05.2012 requesting for personal hearing in the matter. However, the competent authority without withdrawing the earlier Memorandum issued a charge sheet under Rule -16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 vide Memorandum dated 16.05.2012. Attached with this Memorandum were two Articles of Charge which are extracted below: - Article I Shri Rajender Kumar, Deputy Director (EDP) while on official tour to the Data Centre, Guwahati (DCO, Assam) was assigned the duty/job of Houselisting data extraction and NR DVD cutting work. He was instructed to return to headquarter only after finishing the work allocated to him. He returned back to headquarter without completing the assigned job showing his dereliction towards his duties. Thus, Shri Rajender Kumar by derelicting his duties, has violated the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii) & 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article II Shri Rajender Kumar while working as Deputy Director (DP) in Office of Registrar General, India was given a tour assignment to Guwahati with direction to come back to Delhi after obtaining separate permission. Shri Rajender Kumar did not comply the orders/directions of his superiors and left the station/place of duty without seeking prior permission of the competent authority. Shri Rajender Kumar by doing so, has violated the provisions of Rule 3(1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 2.1 The applicant submitted a detailed representation on 01.06.2012 against this new charge sheet. However, he did not receive any reply to the same for more than six months. The contention of the applicant is that neither any enquiry is being conducted nor the matter is being closed. Consequently, the applicant is suffering because he is not getting vigilance clearance due to pendency of these proceedings against him and is not being considered by other departments for deputation. Aggrieved by the conduct of the respondents the applicant has filed this O.A. before us. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the charge sheet in this case was not issued with the approval of the competent authority, which happens to be the President in this case. Therefore, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Ors. Vs. B.V. Gopinath, (Civil Appeal No. 7761/2013) decided on 05.09.2013, this charge sheet deserves to be quashed.
(3.) IN Para -7 and Para -8 of their counter affidavit, the respondents have stated as follows: - 7. That a chargesheet under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to applicant for disobeying the instructions of his superiors and dereliction of official duties vide memorandum dated 22.11.2011. The applicant (Shri Rajender Kumar) denied the charges levelled against him vide reply dated 30.11.2011. Therefore, Hon'ble Minister of State for Home Affairs being Disciplinary Authority approved for holding of an inquiry against Shri Rajender Kumar. 8. As per Rule 16(1)(b) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, formal chargesheet as per instructions laid down in Rule 14(3) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to Shri Rajender Kumar vide memorandum dated 16.5.2012 and following charges were levelled against him for : i) Returning back to headquarter without completing the assigned job showing his dereliction towards his duties. ii) Not complying the orders/directions of his superiors and leaving the station/place of duty without seeking prior permission of the competent authority.;