CHANDA RAM BUNKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this O.A. filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985 the applicant makes a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 16.2.2000 by which the applicant has been retired compulsorily from service and to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service forthwith on the post of Addl. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise with all consequential benefits.

(2.) In brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that while he working on the post of Additional Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, the applicant was served with a memorandum of charge-sheet on 4.11.87. The allegations against the applicant are that he contracted second marriage while having a spouse, without permission of the Central Govt., thereby violated the provisions of the Rule 3(1)(iii) and Rule 21(2) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It is stated that after issuance of the charge-sheet, enquiry officer was appointed. The applicant filed a detailed reply alongwith certificate dated 5.1.75 issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Norangpura, Distt. Jaipur, by which it was made clear that the first marriage of the applicant was solemnized in the year 1959, when the applicant was only 14 years of age and this marriage was dissolved in the year 1973, as per customs and usages prevalent in the community and thereafter, the applicant was married to Smt. Badami in February 1974, much before the applicant joined in Govt. service. The Enquiry Officer, after enquiry, exonerated the applicant, vide its report dated 17.9.92 but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the report of the Enquiry Officer and after considering the submissions of the applicant, ordered de novo enquiry vide its order dated 8.8.94. This order was challenged by the applicant in O.A. No. 1596/94 before Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal, who decided the O.A. on 4.1.95 with the direction to the respondents to conclude the enquiry within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is stated that when the enquiry was not concluded within the stipulated time, the applicant filed another O.A. before Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal which was also disposed of by the Tribunal. It is further stated that the Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of complainant Smt. Rama Devi and Nathu Ram but these statements were recorded behind the back of the applicant and the Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report dated 24.11.97. The applicant was supplied copy of enquiry report to which he submitted a detailed reply and written submissions but without any basis, and support of evidence, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 16.2.2000. It is stated that the allegations against the applicant was that without dissolution of his first marriage he contracted second marriage without permission of the Central Govt. but there was no evidence on record to support these allegations and as such the punishment so imposed upon the applicant, is not sustainable in law. It is also stated that the punishment so imposed is also disproportionate to the gravity of charges. Therefore, the applicant filed this O.A. for the relief as above.

(3.) DURING the argument, the learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently urged (i) that the department failed to establish the fact in the departmental enquiry that the applicant contracted the second marriage in February 1975, after entering into the Govt. service. Therefore, it is a case of no evidence and finding of the enquiry officer hearing the applicant guilty is thus perverse and the punishment so imposed on such finding is also perverse and not sustainable in law and that (ii) if for the sake of argument this Tribunal reaches to the conclusion that the applicant was rightly held guilty of the charges levelled against him in that case the punishment imposed upon the applicant is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. In support of his contentions, he has referred (i) Laxman Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1998(3) WLC (Raj. H.C) 448, (ii) Prakash Babu Bajpai v. UOI and Ors., 1995(3) WLC 307 (iii) Prabhu Lal Agarwal v. State of Raj. and Ors., 1991 (2) WLC 469, (iv) M.K. Soni v. State of Raj. and Ors., 1991 (2) WLC 481 and Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Ors., (1999) 2 SCC 10=1999(1) SLR 283=1999(3) SLJ 111 (SC).