AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the reliefs as under:
a) To quash the Memo NO.- IO/Dukura SO/2022, dated 12.1.2022 vide Annexure-A/8.
b) And pass appropriate orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The case in nutshell as averred by the applicant in the OA is that he is working as a PA Rairangpur, HO under Mayurbhanj Postal Division. A charge sheet memorandum to hold a departmental inquiry against the applicant by Respondent No. 4 was issued on 24.11.2021 (A/1). The applicant preferred a representation before Respondent No. 4 dated 27.12.2021 (A/3), requesting to supply the additional documents required by the applicant for the filing of the written statement of defense vide Annexure-I, which contained the particulars of documents, relevancy and custodian. The representation however went ignored by the respondents, following which the applicant filed OA No. 653/2021 in this Tribunal, requesting for a direction to the Respondents to supply the required additional documents to the applicant. The OA was disposed of dated 04.01.2022(A/4), with the order of the Tribunal directing the respondents to dispose of the representation by the applicant within a period of 3 weeks. It is submitted that the respondents intimated the applicant of the appointment of an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting officer vide letter dated 7/10.01.2022 (A/5 and A/6). The applicant filed another representation to the Respondent No. 4 on 11.01.2022 (A/7) to draw his attention to the order of the Tribunal dated 04.01.2022, and further requested again for the provision of the additional documents. Thereupon, Respondent No. 5 fixed the date of the inquiry to 28.01.2022, as per the memo dated 12.01.2022 (A/8). Subsequently the applicant made a representation to the IO on 13.01.2022 (A/9) to postpone the inquiry proceeding. The applicant contends that the respondents are withholding the documents requested by the applicant, thus going against the Office Memorandum No. F.30/5/61-AVD of the Ministry of Home Affairs Administrative Vigilance Division dated 25.08.1961 (A/2). Hence the OA.
Respondents have filed their counter stating therein that the list of 25 documents required by the applicant have been provided to him dated 17.12.2021 (R/3). The supply of the additional documents requested by the applicant is not applicable at the current stage of inquiry, since as per the Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, the additional documents are to be considered by the inquiry officer after or during the inquiry, and preferring to the Disciplinary Authority for the additional documents is not admissible under the same. The respondents also submit that the memorandum cited by the applicant dated 25.08.1961 is applicable to only Rule 15 of CCS(CCA) Rules which deals with suspension, whereas the disciplinary proceeding against the applicant has been initiated under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Moreover since the memo date 25.08.1961 was issued prior to CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, the former is not applicable in this instant case. A reasoned, speaking order has been issued by the SPO on 24.01.2022 (R/1) as per the directions of the tribunal order dated 04.01.2022. The SPO has issued a reasoned, speaking order on 24.01.2022 (R/1) in accordance with the directives outlined in the order passed by the Tribunal dated 04.01.2022. Additionally, a new Inquiring Officer has been appointed vide the Superintendent of Post Offices Mayurbhanj Division Memo No.-L-36/85(Sub)/Disc-I dated 08.04.2022 (R/2) basing on the accusation of bias against the Inquiry Officer by the applicant. Alleging that the applicant is employing delaying tactics to hinder the investigation within departmental proceedings, the respondents have requested the dismissal of the OA.
The applicant has filed rejoinder and the respondents have filed reply to the rejoinder reiterating the stand taken by them in the OA and the counter respectively.
Admittedly a charge memo under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 was issued to the applicant vide letter dated 24.11.2021 (A/1) where at Annexure/III 25 documents were listed. The copies of the said documents were supplied to the applicant. The applicant vide letter 27.12.2021 asked for further 21 documents and approached this Tribunal in OA No. 683/2021. This Tribunal vide order dated 04.01.2022 disposed of the OA with directions to Respondent No.4 to consider the representation dated 27.12.2021 (Annexure A/3) of the applicant, in accordance with law and pass a speaking and reasoned order to be communicated to the applicant within a period of three weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. It is the claim of the applicant that without supplying the documents or disposing his representation, the respondents vide order 7/10.01.2022 appointed Inquiring Officer and Presenting Officer. Thereafter the Inquiring Officer vide order 12.01.2022 fixed 28.01.2022 as preliminary/1st sitting of the inquiry.
It is the contention of the applicant that without supplying the documents vide letter 27.12.2021 for preparing of his defense statement the action of the respondents is barred in law as per settled law and Ministry of Home Affairs OM Dated 25.08.1961 (A/2).
It is the contention of the respondents that this OM dated 25.08.1961 is not applicable to the present case since the applicant has been proceeded under rule no. 14 CCS(CCA) Rules 1965, whereas in the said OM it is stated that it applicable to only rule 15 of the CCS(CCA) Rules. It is also submitted that the said OM was brought in the year 1961 whereas the CCS (CCA) Rules came into force in 1965, therefore the said OM has no applicability. It is further submitted that the representation of applicant dated 27.12.2021 was disposed of vide order dated 24.01.2022 wherein it was stated that as per procedure laid down in Departmental Inquiry under Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, examination of relevancy and supply of additional documents to the charged official is required to be done by the Inquiring Officer appointed for the purpose at appropriate stage during the course of Inquiry. In the instant case, the Applicant has not submitted his written statement of defence after receipt of listed documents and asked for supply of additional documents even before the start of inquiry which violates the due procedure of Rule-14 inquiry. As such Inquiring Officer has been appointed vide Superintendent of Post Offices Mayurbhanj Division Memo No-L-36/85/(Sub)/Disc-I dtd 07/10.01.2022 to extend reasonable opportunity to the applicant by the way of conducting Oral Inquiry and to consider the request of the applicant or otherwise. It is also submitted that since the applicant had made biased allegation against the earlier Inquiring Officer Shri Saurav Kumar, the Disciplinary Authority had appointed a fresh Inquiring Officer vide order dated 08.04.2022. The respondents further submitted that the applicant instead of approaching the Disciplinary Authority should have approached the Inquiring Officer for further Documents if needed as per the Rule III of Procedure of Conducting Inquiries. They submitted that the applicant is employing dilatory tactics and hence prayed for the dismissal of the OA.
Para 3 of the Procedure for conducting inquiries states that:
Inspection of documents before hearings.- (1) There are two types of documents to which the CO has a right of access for defending himself. The first category comprises of the documents relied upon by the DA to prove the charges, viz., those listed with the charge-sheet. The second category includes the documents which may be relied upon by the CO for preparing his defence. The CO while furnishing a list of documents in official custody the perusal of which is required for purposes of his defence, should indicate the relevancy of each from defence point of view. These Defence Documents are commonly known as Additional Documents. While the CO has a complete and unconditional right of access to the first category of documents, right of access to the second category of documents which may be in the custody of Government is limited by two conditions. Firstly, the IO may turn down the request for the production of those documents which are considered as not relevant to the defence of the CO. Secondly, the controlling authority, namely, the Head of the Department, may refuse to produce the requisitioned documents on ground of prejudice to the public interest or security of the State. In either case, however, before the commencement of regular hearing the CO will be given an opportunity to inspect the listed documents/permitted additional documents. Inspection may be carried out in the presence of the IO himself, or the PO or any other officer deputed for the purpose.
It is seen from records that this Tribunal while deciding the interim prayer of the applicant vide order dated 03.02.2022 had observed as follows:
“6. It may be recorded that it is not necessary that each and every document must be supplied to the delinquent Government Servant facing the charges. Instead, only material and relevant document which are necessary and have relevance to the charges filed on him to be supplied to him. It is for the competent authority/disciplinary authority, not the Court/Tribunal, to decide the necessisty/requirement for supplying of copy of those documents (requested by the applicant) at this stage, in accordance with law for the purpose of enabling the applicant to submit his defence brief.
It is not known, if the representation dated 27.12.2021 (wherein the applicant has requested for supplying of documents) of the applicant, which was directed, by this Tribunal vide order dated 04.01.2022, to be disposed of in accordance with law, within three weeks, has been disposed or not. Therefore, the IO/Respondent No. 5 should defer the inquiry proceeding till the representation dated 27.12.2021 is disposed of and communicated to the applicant.”
The respondents in their counter have filed order dated 24.01.2022 wherein the representation of the applicant was disposed of by the Disciplinary Authority. The same has not been challenged by the applicant in this OA. It is also seen from the counter that the Respondents vide order dated 08.04.2022 have appointed new Inquiring Officer and ordered to start the inquiry. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant in this OA becomes redundant.
In view of the above discussions, the OA is dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs.