Narender Kumar Sharma v. Union of India

2) The petitioner submits that he had applied for leave due to ill health of his father to defend his various court cases instituted against him by his wife on false and baseless allegations. He had submitted leave applications from time to time. However, by charge memo dated 08.01.2007, the respondents had initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner on account of unauthorised absence. Penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the pay scale of 4000-6000 was imposed vide order dated 02.03.2007. The petitioner was served with the second charge memo dated 30.06.2008 on the allegations of wilful absence. After receipt of the said charge memo, the petitioner filed an application for providing relevant documents. However, it is claimed that the documents were not supplied. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer was appointed without application of mind. The Inquiry Officer who was required to hold an inquiry as per Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 did not follow any of the provisions as provided in classes (11) to (23) of Rule 14. It is further stated that the petitioner was not even served a notice for defending the allegations levied upon him nor was he allowed to inspect documents. The petitioner was provided with a copy of the inquiry report dated 31.03.2009. Aggrieved by the said report, the Petitioner approached the Inquiry Officer and requested that all the order sheets while conducting inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 („Rules‟) be provided to him. However, documents were not supplied. Thereafter, by the order dated 09.07.2009, the disciplinary authority imposed upon the petitioner the extreme penalty of removal from service. The petitioner submitted an appeal dated 27.07.2009 to the Appellate Authority but the same was rejected vide order dated 13.10.2009.

3) The petitioner then filed OA No. 3203/2009 which was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 29.07.2010 with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh as per Rule 27 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Appellate Authority has failed to decide the appeal as directed by the Tribunal, therefore, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition for directions to pass an order strictly in compliance with the order of the Tribunal dated 29.07.2010. The Contempt Petition was closed by the Tribunal by taking note of order dated 31.12.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority.

4) The petitioner filed another O.A. No. 586/2011 before the Tribunal. A miscellaneous application was also filed on 23.08.2011 for production of records. Pleadings were completed. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, has dismissed the said O.A. vide order dated 30.10.2012. Thereafter, R.A. No. 132/2013 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 25.04.2016.

5) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The contention of the petitioner is that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are in violation of the well settled rules of justice under Rule 14 of Rules. The petitioner further states that the entire proceedings itself are liable to be quashed as the Inquiry Officer acted against the Rules. The Petitioner also states that he did not receive even a single notice by the Inquiry Officer except for the 1st notice which was issued for preliminary hearing. After receipt of the said notice the Petitioner had informed that he would not be available on the next date fixed, as he had to attend court hearing in the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. After receiving the said information, the Inquiry Officer had adjourned the hearing, but no further information was given to the petitioner.

6) The Tribunal while dismissing the O.A. No. 586/2011 vide order dated 30.10.2012 held that the petitioner had not taken any interest in participating in the inquiry against him in spite of having the required knowledge. The petitioner remained wilfully absent from duty for 248 days and accordingly he was punished by the disciplinary authority.

7) The record demonstrates that the Inquiry Officer had sent four letters to the petitioner vide registered post with AD and asked the petitioner to be present on 11.08.2008, 28.08.2008, 22.09.2008 and 02.12.2008. The aforesaid letters were sent to the petitioner at the address which was provided by him to the respondents. The aforesaid letters were returned with the report that no such person resides at the given address. The grievance of the petitioner was that he was not served with any such letters. If there was any change in the address, then it was the duty of the petitioner to inform the respondents. Thus, it is clearly proved that notices were sent by the inquiry officer. Repeated non delivery of letter/notices would indicate deliberate attempt to avoid service. This is unacceptable.

8) The petitioner was aware about the inquiry proceedings and the conduct of the petitioner shows that he was neither interested nor did he participate in the inquiry, and was negligent throughout. The record shows that the petitioner had attended duty between August, 2008 to December, 2008 for 16 days on different dates and he was informed by his Group Officer/Section about the inquiry before the date of hearing but he did not attend. The non appearance and non participation was intentional.

9) The previous conduct of the petitioner shows that vide order dated 02.03.2007, he was punished for absenting himself from Government duty without prior information/sanction of leave for 128 days during June, 2006 to December, 2006 and was awarded “Reduction to the lower stage from 4,600/- per month to 4,500/- per month in the time scale of pay of Rs.4000- 100-6000 for a period of one year without cumulative effect”.

10) As mentioned above, a charge memo dated 30.06.2008 under Rule 14 of the Rules was issued to the petitioner for unauthorised absence. It is evident from the record that the petitioner did not respond to the memorandum of charge sheet No. PF/4471/LC dated 30.06.2008 and an inquiry was initiated against him. The inquiry report was sent to the petitioner on 31.03.2009 which was received by him on 25.04.2009 but he had failed to avail the opportunity to file a representation against the inquiry report. Thus, the petitioner had neither responded to the charge memo or the inquiry report.

11) Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an appeal against the punishment order. The Appellate Authority rejected the same on 13.10.2009.

12) The petitioner had filed an OA No. 3203/2009 which was partially allowed vide order dated 29.07.2010, holding that the Tribunal cannot support a person who is a habitual absentee whatsoever may be the justification and one who has not come forth in the inquiry. However, the plea of the applicant that he was not afforded an opportunity to be defended reasonably in the inquiry needs to be taken into consideration. The tribunal without quashing the inquiry report as well as the order passed by the disciplinary authority, remanded the case to the appellate authority to examine the contentions raised by the applicant in the backdrop of Rule 27 and thereafter to pass a reasoned order. Resultantly, the OA was allowed to the extent of quashing the appellate order. The matter was remitted to the appellate authority to comply with the above directions by passing a speaking order within a period of three months.

13) The Appellate Authority re-examined the records and passed a fresh order dated 31.12.2010. For better appreciation of the facts, the relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:-