Vikram Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟) dated 28.08.2014 by which the OA filed by the petitioner herein seeking quashing of the charge sheet was rejected, has led to the filing of the present writ petition. The necessary facts which are required to be noticed are as under.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed in the Indian System of Medicines & Homeopathy(ISM&H) to the post of Research Officer (H) w.e.f. 26.05.1982. He was appointed Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) in December, 2007 by the Department of AYUSH with prior approval of the Chief Vigilance Commission and lastly promoted to the post of Deputy Director (H) w.e.f. 01.02.2008. The petitioner was the second senior-most person in the Department below the Director General. On the last day of 2015:DHC:6919-DB his service i.e. 31.12.2013, a major penalty charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to the petitioner. The following charges were framed: “Article-I That the said Dr. Vikram Singh, Deputy Director(H) while functioning as Assistant Director In-charge, Central Research In- Charge, Central Research Institute (Homeo), (CRI(H) Noida, during May, 2007 informally awarded the work to develop the Research Garden behind the CRI (h) Noida, building to one M/s Saleem Nursery, C/o Sardar Patel School, C-5-230B, Village Nithari, Sector-31, Noida, without following the proper procedure/docal formalities. He did not take approval of the competent authority before awarding the work to M/s Saleem Nursery; ignored the specific directions of the competent authority; and submitted inflated bill for the said work. Dr. Vikram Singh, Deputy Director (H) has, thus, acted in a manner violated Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article –II That the aforesaid Dr. Vikram Singh, while functioning as Deputy Director (H) and CVO in the Headquarters, New Delhi was asked to hand over the charge of CVO to Sh. M.S.P. Panicker to which he did not comply and adopted delaying tactics by seeking clarification. The said action of Dr. Vikram Singh, Deputy Director(H) amounted not only to disobedience of the orders of the Competent Authority but also callused insubordination. Such action on the part of the said Officer is unbecoming of a Govt. Servant and has, thus, violated Rule 3(1) (i) and 3(1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article III That the said Dr.Vikram Singh, Deputy Director(H) CCRH was transferred to HDRI, Lucknow along with the post and stood relieved of his duties at the Council‟s Headquarters with effect from 05/10/2011. Consequently, the said Dr. Vikram Singh, DD(H) was required to hand over the charge of his office to the assigned officer. He was also required to return all Nonconsumable Govt. stores etc., issued to him while working in the Council‟s Headquarter. But he failed to do so. Further, on 07/10/2011 at 7.50 a.m., the said Dr. Vikram Singh DD(H) entered room No.404 of the Council‟s office with duplicate key, which he was using as his office and took away files etc. unauthorizedly. He again entered the office premises unauthorizedly on 10th October, 2011. He has, thus, violated Rule 3(1) (I) and 3(1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

4. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Tribunal is bad in law and the same is liable to quashed. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had, amongst others, raised the following grounds before the Tribunal.

5. The charge sheet was signed by the Director General, Dr. R.K. Manchanda on 31.12.2013 when he was on earned leave and the petitioner was looking after his duties. The charge sheet was issued by the President who could have only signed the same in the case of emergency, otherwise the disciplinary authority would be the Governing Body of Central Council. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, (2014) 1 SCC 351, where it has been held that the charge memo should have been approved by the competent authority, failing which the disciplinary proceedings would stand vitiated. Additionally, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that a mere reading of article of charge-I would show that it relates to a decision taken by the petitioner in the year 2007, which was to develop a Research Garden behind the Central Research Institute (Homeo) (CRI(H), Noida. As far as the second article of charge is concerned, it was alleged that there was delay in his handing over of charge after he was appointed as CVO, while the third article of charge was that he took away some files unauthorizedly from the office.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the first charge is concerned, there was no financial loss to the Department as the work did not commence and no work for developing the Garden was actually awarded, nor any financial loss was suffered. As far as the second charge is concerned, he submits that the delay in handing over the charge of CVO was on account that he had sought certain clarifications as to whether the order has been passed with the consent of competent authorities, and as regards the third charge, it is submitted that the charge is vague as there is no details with regard to the files.

7. Mr. Narula, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has handed over in Court a copy of the approval duly signed by the then Minister of Health and Family Welfare dated 31.12.2013. Reliance is placed on para 6 by Mr. Narula in response to the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the approval was to be granted by the Governing Body of Central Council. Para 6 reads as under:

8. Mr. Narula submits that the approval was sought from the Minister as the term of the Governing Body had expired. As far as the legal submission raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, reliance is placed on para 9, which reads as under:

9. Mr. Narula contends that the Minister had duly applied his mind. All the relevant material was placed before him and he had granted approval for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and also for issuance of the charge sheet. Thus, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is without any force that there was no application of mind.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and their rival submissions.

11. The first submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that approval for initiation of departmental proceedings of the petitioner was granted by the Minister as is evident from the communication dated 31.12.2013, but the communication also evinces that the charge sheet was approved on the same date which could not have been approved in view of the settled position of law in the case of Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath. We deem it appropriate to reproduce paras 21, 23, 44, 49, 53 and 56 of the aforesaid judgment, as under: