R S SAGAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 4/6/1998 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby O.A. 1252 of 1997 and O.A.No. 1737 of 1997 filed by the petitioner were dismissed. The facts in brief are as under :

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Executive Engineer (C) on regular and permanent basis in Central Engineering Services Group-A on 3/10/1969 after he successfully competed at the Combined Indian Engineering Services Examination 1968 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). On 11/1/1982, he was promoted as Superintending Engineer (C) on ad-hoc basis. While working as Superintending Engineer (C) on ad-hoc basis in February 1983, Mr. R.S. Sagar, petitioner, was incharge of Central Circle IX CPwD comprising of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, CPwD where extensive work of renovation, addition/alteration was carried out to cater to the need of VVIPS who were to visit the country in connection with Non-Aligned-Meet. The work of extensive renovation, addition/alteration in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia was done under the supervision of the petitioner. The petitioner was initially appreciated by the higher authorities but later on when the work was inspected by the Technical Committee some defects/lapses were noticed and two charge sheets were issued to the petitioner. The first charge sheet dated 30/10/1985 was issued under Rule 14 CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 for major penalty in respect of lapses found in the work of re-flooring of rooms of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. Later on, these, major penalty proceedings were dropped vide order dated 3/7/1996. The other charge sheet dated 10/9/1993 was in respect of lapses/ irregularities noticed in execution of work of providing aluminium windows in the corridors. This second charge sheet was issued under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA ) Rules 1965 for imposition of minor penalty and the penalty of censure was imposed upon him on 11/3/996. It may be pointed out here that before issuing second charge sheet dated 10/9/1993 a Memo dated 31/3/1986 was issued to the petitioner asking him to explain various lapses/irregularities noticed in the work of aluminium glazing. Vide memo dated 31/3/1986, the petitioner was asked to furnish his explanation within 15 days of the receipt of the memorandum failing which it will be presumed that he has ' no satisfactory explanation whatsoever and the action as deemed fit will be initiated without waiting for his reply any further.

(3.) According to the petitioner he sent his reply dated 2/9/1986 to memorandum dated 31/3/1986. Thereafter he also sent some more details vide letter dated 11/10/1991 but the department took no action on the memo dated 31/3/1986. Suddenly on 10/9/1993 he was served with second charge sheet under rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 for imposition of minor penalty in respect of lapses/irregularities noticed in the work of addition, alteration in aluminium glazinu in the verandah of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on 3/10/1994. DPC cleared the petitioner's name for his promotion from Executive Engineer (C) to Superintending Engineer (C) on regular basis, but DPC's recommendation waa kept in a sealed cover in accordance with the guide-lines laid down in O.M. No. 2204-i/9-Estt.(A) dated 14/9/1992.