Anil Kumar Anand vs Union Of India And Ors

Sunil Gaur, J

Petitioner, who appears in person, chooses to argue this petition himself and asserts that he is Vice-President in Unit Trust of India Assets

Management Company Limited (respondent No.4) and was departmentally proceeded, while he was working as Chief Manager, Faridabad UTI

Finance Centre.

The Inquiry Officer has indicted petitioner on the charges leveled against him on 18th August, 2016, which was challenged by petitioner in the

earlier round of litigation. Vide order of 5th September, 2017 (Annexure P-2), petitioner’s challenge was repelled with observation that the

Disciplinary Authority shall apply its mind on the pleas to be taken by petitioner in his representation. Petitioner’s review of the order of 5th

September, 2017 was also negated. Then, petitioner had filed Letters Patent Appeal, which was withdrawn by him and the Division Bench it its order

of 1st November, 2017 (Annexure P-8 colly.) had observed that the Disciplinary Authority shall apply its mind on the representation purportedly filed

by petitioner on 11th September, 2017 and pass a speaking order thereon.

The impugned order of 30th October, 2017 (Annexure P-9 colly.) proposes penalty of dismissal from service and advises petitioner to submit his

representation against the proposed penalty. The plea of petitioner is that his representation has not been decided and straightaway the penalty has

been proposed and the time granted to him to file the representation was short one as the impugned order was conveyed to petitioner on 8th

November, 2017 and it was clarified by petitioner to respondent No.5 that petitioner had gone to perform annual religious ceremony (shradh) of his

late mother and while taking note of the aforesaid fact, respondent No.5 had extended the time till 26th November, 2017.

Petitioner submits that it would be futile to make a representation against the proposed penalty because petitioner maintains that the Authority who

had issued the charge-sheet was not competent and so was the Inquiry Officer, who held the Inquiry, as the persons who had issued the charge-sheet

and held the Inquiry are junior to petitioner and are not permanent employees of respondent No.4. Petitioner also asserts that he is laying a challenge

to the vires of Rules 3(h), 55(2) and 57 of the Unit Trust of India (Staff Rules), 1978 (Annexure P-1 colly.), as amended from time to time. In support

of above submission, reliance is placed upon Supreme Court’s decisions in The Management of D.T.U. v. B.B.L. Hajelay and Another AIR 1972

SC 2452 and Mathura Prasad v. Union of India and Others (2007) 1 SCC 437.

Learned counsel for contesting respondent No.4 submits that challenge to the competence of the authorities who had issued the charge-sheet and

held the Inquiry has been already repelled in the first round of litigation and so, petitioner is not justified in refusing to make a representation against the

proposed penalty. In this regard, attention of this Court is drawn by learned counsel for contesting respondent No.4 to paragraphs No. 13 to 15 of the

order of 5th September, 2017 (Annexure P-2). He further submits that the aforesaid order has attained finality as the appeal against it has already

been dismissed.

Learned counsel for contesting respondent No.4 further submits that petitioner’s Representation of 11th September, 2017 has been considered

in the impugned order. However, during the course of hearing, it was asserted by petitioner that he had reserved his right to make a full-fledged

Representation against proposed penalty.

After having considered the submissions advanced by both the sides and on perusal of impugned order, material on record and the decisions cited, I

find that petitioner’s plea of charge-sheet not being issued by a competent authority and of Inquiry Officer being incompetent to hold the inquiry,

already stands negated in the first round of litigation. It is so evident from the Writ Court’s order of 5th September, 2017 (Annexure P-2), which

has attained finality. The question which falls for consideration is whether petitioner’s Representation has been adequately dealt with in impugned

order or not.

Upon a bare perusal of impugned order, I find that it is not only reasoned one but it effectively deals with the stand taken by petitioner. Hence,

impugned order (Annexure P-9 colly.) is not being interfered with. However, petitioner’s Representation to the proposed penalty is required to be

decided strictly on merits and in accordance with the applicable Rules and Regulations. To enable respondent to do so, petitioner is granted four

weeks’ time to make a Representation against the proposed penalty. If it is so done, then respondent shall decide petitioner’s Representation

within eight weeks of receiving it, by passing a speaking order, uninfluenced by Courts’ orders and in accordance with the applicable Rules and

Regulations. The fate of Representation be made known to petitioner within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies, as

available in law.

With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are disposed of.

Dasti.