S L KUKREJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant Shri S.L. Kukreja has since retired from the post of Executive Engineer, MES on 31st of May, 2000. While he was in service, proceedings for major penalty were instituted against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Control, Classification & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short 'CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965'), pursuant to the Ministry of Defence Memorandum dated 21st October, 1993, a copy of which is Annexure A-2. THE substance of the charge against the applicant is that while he was posted as Assistant Engineer, AGE (B&R) at GE (P), Maharajpur, during the period August, 1983 to April, 1987, he failed to effectively supervise the work of provision of false ceiling and the lapse on his part is attributable to a collapse of Hanger P-3 at Air Force Station, Maharajpur on 23rd May, 1989.

(2.) In all 5 Officers including the applicant were served with the charge memos dated 21.10.1993. Shri Bimal Datta, SE (SG) was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The report of enquiry dated 27.2.1996, Annexure A-3, indicates that the charge against the applicant was not established. The Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that no evidence was adduced to show that the applicant had not got the work done as per laid down details/specifications. A copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the applicant on 6.3.1996. Since the finding of the Enquiry Officer was in favour of the applicant, he submitted a reply dated 25th April, 1996, Annexure A-4, as a mere formality and treated the enquiry as closed. After his superannuation on 31st of May, 2000, it appears that the Disciplinary Authority recorded its disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and consequently a notice to show cause dated 8.5.2002, Annexure A-5, was served on the applicant on 4.10.2000, to which the applicant submitted a reply on 20th November, 2000, Annexure A-6.

(3.) THE applicant has challenged the validity of the order of punishment primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of D.V. Kapoor v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 923, the President has not recorded a finding that the applicant is guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of public duty in the office and since recording of such a finding is a condition precedent for imposing the penalty, the impugned order, Annexure A-1, stands vitiated. THE second ground to challenge the impugned order of punishment is that it is bad in law as before inflicting the punishment, the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as 'UPSC') has not been consulted, though such consultation is mandatory.