SHER SINGH DIRECTOR OF EVALUATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE reliefs claimed in this O.A. are these: "(a) to direct the respondents to cancel, withdraw and/or rescind the impugned: (i) charge-sheet dated 2.6.94; (ii) enquiry proceedings; (iii) enquiry report dated 11.1.2000; (iv) order of dismissal from service dated 22.11.2000 including the recommendation dated 13.10.2000 of the UPSC; (b) to direct the respondents to allow the applicant to discharge his due duties and functions attached to the post as usual as before till he attains the age of superannuation; (c) to direct the respondents to produce the entire records of the case to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication of the points at issue"

(2.) The relevant facts. The applicant was a member of the Indian Administrative Service. He was of 1976 batch and belonged to West Bengal cadre. It is averred that the applicant worked in various capacities including Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South) successfully, yet he was superseded in the matter of promotion in April, 1994 and was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.4.94. A charge-sheet dated 2.6.94, containing five charges, was served on him. The charges relate to the 'misconduct' defined in the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. The applicant replied to the charge-sheet on 22.6.94. Enquiry was conducted and was concluded on 21.12.99. The applicant submitted his defence against the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry report was ultimately submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The applicant made representation on 25.2.2000 against the report. On 22.11.2000 the Disciplinary Authority passed an order against applicant imposing penalty of dismissal under Rule 6(1) (ix) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The applicant received the order of penalty on 18.12.2000. This O.A. has been filed to challenge the enquiry proceedings as also the order of dismissal. (i) The case for the applicant is that while he was Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South) in 1982 he had come to know the facts leading to the brutal murder of 17 Anand Margis in broad day-light on Bijan Setu, P.S. Kasba on 30.4.82, but because of the provisions of the Official Secret Act, he was not in a position to disclose the facts but ever since he came to know the motive and the identity of the leaders behind the murder of 17 persons, he put in his apprehension in several notes and correspondence. It is averred that because of that fact he is victum of the vindictive attitude of some of the high ups in the Writers' Buildings. (ii) The further case for the applicant is that he has an acumen for research in history, archaeology and allied subjects and, therefore, he sought permission of the Government for research work on 'Architecture of Babur' and he was allowed to conduct research work vide memo dated 17.9.86. However, it is alleged, the Government refused permission to publish a book 'The Secular Emperor Babur' vide letter dated 19.5.87 and that book was published by Lok Geet Prakashan, Sirhind 140 406 as co-authored by Mrs. Surinder Kaur (wife of the applicant) and one Shri Tapan Sanyal. (iii) This is also the case for the applicant that for the publication of 'The Secular Emperor Babur' no permission was necessary as the Government had already permitted him research work on 'Architecture of Babur' and 'Biography of Babur for missing period of 1528' vide letters dated 17.9.86 and 3.9.87. According to the applicant, the publication is of purely literary and of scientific character based on persistent research for which the State Government had accorded the permission. (iv) It is also the case for the applicant that in July, 1993 he came to know through Press sources that he and his wife were named for King Faisal Award through the Government of India and hence in order to know the truth of the facts he wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary, West Bengal Government, in December, 1993 and to the Central Government through State Government on 5.9.94, but he did not receive any reply. According to him, because of his notings on Anand Margi murder case, the top bosses, who were aligned to certain political parties, had alienated from him, though eminent personalities like Shri B.N. Pande, Ex-Governor of Orissa and a historian of international repute, Shri M.H. Beg, Ex-Chief Justice of India, Shri S.Z. Qasim, Member, Planning Commission, wrote the preface of the first 3 volumes of 'The Secular Emperor Babur' in glowing terms. (v) It is averred that the charge-sheet was without jurisdiction, vague and devoid of material particulars and that the enquiry report is perverse and is based on no evidence and the order passed is in gross violation of the order passed by this Tribunal. It is also averred that the allegation of publication of 'The Secular Emperor Babur' cannot be the subject matter of the enquiry as it is the research work. It is also stated that the authorities concerned discarded his version on extraneous considerations.

(3.) IN the two rejoinders, the applicant while reiterating the facts stated in the O.A. averred that no prior permission of the Government was required under proviso (i) of Rule 6(2) of All INdia Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 for publishing the book as it was published through publisher and it was purely literary and scientific in character. It is further stated that the applicant has been participating in various seminars and discussions all over INdia since 1988 and he has even attended international seminar held at Patna. It is stated that in the enquiry held against him the Presenting Officer took six years to produce the evidence, but the applicant was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. It is further stated that the applicant has been named as witness in the Baburi Masjit demolition case and his statement under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. was recorded to prove that what is known as Baburi Masjid at Ayodhya was built 16 years before the birth of Babar and it was built by an Eunuch, then Governor of Jaunpur (Husain Shah Sharqi). It is averred that this was not liked by the Central Ministers, who have been chargesheeted in the Baburi Masjid demolition case. It is pleaded that the order dated 22.11.2000 has been issued in colourable exercise of power under the influence of chargesheeted Ministers of the Centre.