Satpal vs Union Of India And Ors

Ashish Kalia, J

Applicant is seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before the Lordships for the proper adjudication in the matter in the interest of justice.

(b) Quash and setting aside the impugned orders dt. 09.01.17 (Annexure A/1) issued by the disciplinary authority awarding the penalty of dismissal from services in terms of Rule 11 (ix) of CCS (CCA) Rules and the order dt. 14.06.17 (Annexure A/2) issued by the appellate authority confirming the penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority with all other consequential benefits i.e. reinstatement in services, full back wages with interest, seniority, promotion etc.

(c) Allowing the O.A. of the applicant with costs.

(d) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted."

The applicant was appointed as MTS on 31.12.1991. Thereafter on 18.12.2014 he was placed under suspension on the ground of criminal complaint against him which was under investigation.

Thereafter applicant was asked to submit his explanation in regard to allegation against him and chargesheet was served on him which reads thus:

"Sh. Satpal, MTS, Directorate General of Health Services has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant in as much as that he concealed the information regarding transaction of Rs.22 Lakh done by him and exhibited insubordination by not providing details of transactions of all his bank account, thereby violating Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii) and (iii) and Rule 16 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964."

It was further submitted that no list of witnesses or documents were served upon him though 10 documents were relied upon in the enquiry. For want of these documents, applicant could not submit the effective reply earlier but later on these documents were supplied to him. Thereafter, he submitted the detailed reply denying the charges levelled against him. However, on conclusion of enquiry proceedings, Enquiry Officer submitted the report proving the charges levelled against him in a mechanical way in unjust manner. Applicant on receipt of enquiry report submitted his representation on 21.09.2016 and thereafter the disciplinary authority awarded the penalty of dismissal from service on 09.01.2017, which will be a disqualification for future employment under the Government.

Appeal was also preferred on 07.02.2017 against the penalty order but same was also rejected by non-speaking order. Hence applicant approached this Tribunal mainly on the ground that there is no evidence on record against the applicant. There is only one PW i.e. Section Officer, who has also not been examined by the Enquiry Officer.

Learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon"ble Supreme Court in Hardwari Lal vs. State of U.P., 1999 (8) JT 418 in which it was held that non examination of complainant in the inquiry proceedings who is the material witness would vitiate the proceedings. He has also relied upon the case of Hon"ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 398 wherein it was held that:

"14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence."

Notices were issued to the respondents. They filed reply in which it is submitted that:

6.1 Applicant was appointed on Group-D post re-designated as MTS from 31.12.1991. A complaint was received in the office of the then Hon"ble Minister, Health and Family Welfare (HFM) which was forwarded to the Directorate General of Health Services, respondent No.2 herein, on 17.12.2014 for necessary action.

Dr. B.Tamilarasan, the complainant had alleged that Sh. Satpal, claiming to be Special Secretary to the then Health Minister (whereas in fact Sh. Satpal, the applicant herein, was actually holding the post of MTS while being posted in the office of HFM) had demanded Rs.35 lakh for getting the daughter of the complainant admitted to MBBS at JIPMER, Pondicherry under VIP quota. Out of Rs.35 lakh, the complainant had enclosed copies of three Demand Drafts of Rs.9 lac, Rs.6 Lac and Rs.7 lac (Annexure R-3) drawn in favour of Sh. Satpal (Satt Paul as mentioned in the Demand Drafts) along with his purported signatures on the reverse side of each copy of draft, acknowledging its receipt. Rest of the amount was to be paid after admission of the daughter of the complainant in MBBS at JIPMER, Pondicherry. The complainant had reportedly visited Delhi and handed over the said Demand Drafts amounting to Rs.22 lakhs to applicant at Nirman Bhawan.

Applicant had thereafter handed over to the complainant the Xerox copy of document (Annexure R-4) regarding approval for VIP quota MBBS seat in respect of Ms. T. Anjukaa in JIPMER, Pondicherry (daughter of the complainant). The said letter was a clear case of forgery as it bore no file number and it was signed by a Section Officer containing no details of his name and furthermore so considering the pertinent fact that the Minister of Health is not bestowed with any discretionary power for granting medical seat under VIP quota.

6.2 In view of the gravity of allegations made against applicant which were under investigation, he was placed under suspension vide order No. C-15015/1/2014-AV dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure R- 5) in terms of sub rule (I) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Orders for payment of subsistence allowance were also issued in terms of existing rules on the subject. A complaint was also lodged against the applicant with the Tuglak Road Police Station on 17.12.2014.

6.3 Requisite documents pertaining to the complaint were supplied to the applicant vide this Directorate"s OM dated 04.02.2015 to furnish his reply with regard to the allegations levelled in the complaint within a period of 7 days of receipt. As no reply was received within the prescribed period, a reminder was issued to applicant vide this Dte"s OM No. C-15015/1/2014-AV(pt.) dated 24.02.2015. In the said OM, applicant was also requested to furnish certified copies of statements pertaining to the last 6 months of all bank accounts held by him in order to examine the allegations of financial misappropriation in proper perspective.

Applicant responded vide his letter dated 02.03.2015 that he had received only one page of letter dated 24.02.2014 (the letter was in fact dated 24.02.2015 and not 24.02.2014 as stated). Although it was apparent that the applicant was trying to buy time, however, vide  Directorate"s  OM  dated  13.03.2015,  he  was  given  another opportunity and directed to collect the documents personally within two days of the receipt of the aforementioned letter. While doing so, the directions for submission of statements of transactions for the last six months of all his bank accounts were also reiterated. Applicant was also warned that in the event of non-compliance of these directions, it would be presumed that the charges levelled against him in the complaint made by Dr. Tamilarasan have been accepted by him.

6.4 Applicant submitted his reply vide letter dated 24.03.2015 refuting the charges/allegations levelled against him. However, it was observed from para 5 of his reply that he was a part of exchange of money in as much as that he accepted the fact about receiving the money from one Sh. Murugesan, Ex-MP, but did not reveal the purpose and documentary evidence of the said transaction. Accordingly, vide Directorate"s Memorandum No. C-15015/1/2014-AV dated 10.04.2015, applicant was directed to furnish full facts with documentary evidence with regard to para 5 of his letter dated 24.03.2015 and also certified copies of the statements of transactions of all his bank accounts for the last 12 months.

6.5 Submitting his response vide letter dated 20.04.2015, applicant intimated that he had taken a loan of Rs.22 lakhs from Sh. Murugesan, Ex-MP, out of which 21 lakhs were returned to different persons as under:

(i) Rs.10 lakhs through cheque No.155224 dated 11.11.2014 in favour of Sh. Murugesan.

(ii) Rs.2 lakhs given to Ms. J.Vasanthi on 17.02.2015 in her account No.618601504824 through E-banking.

(iii) Rs.2 lakhs to Dr. Tamilarasan in his account No.0103000100503201 on 17.02.2015 through e-banking on account of threats given to him by Dr. Tamilarasan in the presence of police officials of PS Tuglak Road.

(iv) Rs.7 lakhs to Dr. P.Rajalakshmi through cheque No.588811 dated 18.02.2015 of SBI Najafgarh Branch.

6.6 The details of transactions as above, mentioned by applicant in his letter dated 20.04.2015 clearly showed that applicant was very much aware about the illegal money transactions and he was also a part of it. The amount allegedly handed over by the complainant to applicant and the amount mentioned by the applicant in his reply (though ostensibly stated to be in form of loan obtained from Sh. Murugesan, as a cover up for his misdeeds) were exactly the same. Furthermore, the DD numbers of the bank drafts to the tune of Rs.7 lakh dated 03.11.2014, Rs.9 lakh dated 05.11.2014 and Rs.6 lakh dated 05.11.2014 drawn in favour of the applicant, as enclosed by Dr. Tamilarasan with his complaint, and as figuring in the bank statements of applicant (credited on 10.11.2014) exactly matched.

The reasons for taking such a huge amount as loan and his relation with Sh. Murugesan, who had readily agreed to lend him that amount, were not revealed in the reply of applicant. It was also not clarified as to why the money has been returned to different persons and not solely to Sh. Murugesan from whom the loan had been taken. Except Rs.10 lakhs, no entry about other amounts mentioned in his reply was found in the bank statement provided by applicant. The statement of his bank account of SBI Nirman Bhawan revealed transactions of lakhs of rupees during the period from 01.10.2014 to 26.11.2014 though he was an employee belonging to the lowest category of MTS in the established hierarchy in the Government.

6.7 If applicant had taken a loan of Rs.22 lakhs from the said Sh. Murugesan, he should have taken prior permission or given intimation to the office as prescribed under Rule 16 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. However, he failed to do so and violated the provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

6.8 Vide Directorate"s Memorandum dated 11.05.2015, applicant was directed to clarify his position with reference to the points raised in aforementioned Memorandum within five days which were mainly in connection with his bank transactions and he was also requested to provide statements of financial transactions of all his Bank Accounts for the last one year.

Applicant vide his reply dated 16.05.2015 while denying all the issues raised in the Memorandum dated 11.05.2015, did not forward the details of his bank transactions for the last one year, as directed. However, while evaluating his reply, it was observed that the reasons put forth by him were not convincing. Rather, his reply further confirmed that applicant had violated Conduct Rules regarding borrowing of money.

Further, applicant had exhibited insubordination and conduct unbecoming of a Government servant in as much as that in spite of repeated reminders; he had not provided details of transactions of all his bank accounts for the last twelve months.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

The applicant has challenged the enquiry mainly on the ground that no list of documents was supplied to him whereas it is not found correct. Documents were duly supplied to him vide OM dated 04.02.2015. Further, these documents were again supplied to him on his request vide OM dated 13.03.2015.

Let us examine the issue raised by the applicant that if document sought by the delinquent official is not supplied, what prejudice would be caused as held by Hon"ble Supreme Court in the matter of Syed Rahimuddin vs. Director General, CSIR & ors., (2001) 9 SCC 575:

"3. We have considered each of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, but we do not find any substance in any one of them. It is, no doubt, true that the delinquent had made an application for production of certain documents and the Enquiring Officer did pass an order for production of those documents. It also transpires that some of those documents I were produced any yet some of them had not 1 been produced. When a grievance was made on this score before the Enquiry Officer by filing a representation of 3rd of August, 1989, the said Enquiring Officer considered the said grievance and came to the conclusion that the very fact that though the inquiry continued from 3-7-1989 to 6-7-1989 and the delinquent had been cross-examining the departmental witnesses, yet no grievance had been made on the score of non-production of any of those vital documents which, according to the delinquent, could have established the defence case. The Enquiring Officer came to the conclusion that the so-called representation D/- 3rd of August, 1989 making a grievance is a dilly dally tactics on the part of the charged officer and the sole intention was to stall the inquiry by any means. In view of the aforesaid conclusion of the Enquiring Officer in its order disposing of the grievance made on 3-8-1989 we do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel that in fact the delinquent was really prejudiced by non-supply of some of the so-called vital documents though for production of the same the Enquiring Officer had ordered. The Tribunal, therefore rightly came to the conclusion that such alleged non-production cannot be held to be a denial of reasonable opportunity to the delinquent in making his defence."

Hon"ble Supreme Court has laid down the criteria in this regards that when documents are not supplied whether it would cause any prejudice to delinquent official and if there is no such prejudice, document need not to be supplied. The ratio of Syed Rahimuddin's case (supra) squarely applies to the present case. The applicant has not disclosed what prejudice has been caused to him for non-supply of documents. The list of documents contains only OM issued by the Government and the Bank Statement of Accounts which were relied upon. It seems applicant has raised this objection for the sake of raising only. Thus we are not convinced on this plea.

The further objection raised by the applicant that lone witness Section Officer has not been examined by the enquiry officer is also not favourable to the applicant. If he (witness) has not been produced as prosecution witness, applicant was at liberty to make him as defence witness and get him examined. If for any reason some witness is dropped by the prosecution, that does not make defence case strong unless he depose in favour of delinquent officer. Thus, this point is also inconvincible hence not accepted.

In the present case onus lies on the applicant to clarify the financial transaction entered by him by accepting money from Dr. B. Tamilarasan who made complaint against him which was later on settled by him. The charge against the applicant was that he has to explain the huge amount in his account while he was working as MTS, which was investigated and it was found that explanation offered were unconvincing and charges are thus proved against him.

The Tribunal cannot adopt the role of Appellate Authority or stepping in the shoes of the enquiry officer as has been held in the matter of Union of India vs. Parma Nanda, (1989) 2 SCC 177 wherein Hon"ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

"..... the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with: the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority."

The punishment awarded or conclusion so arrived at cannot be interfered unless it is perverse, unjust or illegal. To support his argument, learned counsel for respondents has relied upon the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K.Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759 wherein Hon"ble Supreme Court has held that:

".....High Court in Writ Jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. Since, the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court cannot normally speaking substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. Even insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the Disciplinary or the Departmental Appellate Authority, is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears, ignored the well-settled principle that even though Judicial Review of administrative action must remain flexible and its dimension not closed, yet the Court in exercise of the power of judicial review is not concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact on the basis of which the orders are made so long as those findings are reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived at through proceedings which cannot be faulted with for procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate the process by which the decision was arrived at. Judicial Review, it must be remembered, is directed not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-making process."

(Emphasis supplied)

The judgment cited by the applicant in Roop Singh Negi's case (supra) does not attract into the present case where things have to be proved by giving cogent proof/evidence to clarify known source in respect of huge financial transaction and reasons for the same when his conduct is under clouds. Similarly, ratio in the case of Hardwari Lal (supra) also does not attract in present case as onus lies on the applicant and prosecution witness to prove the receipt of huge amount of money in the account of applicant.

Thus, in view of the above legal discussion on the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that there is no merit in the case and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.