Shashi Mohan vs Union Of India And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

This OA is filed challenging two charge sheets issued against the applicant, namely, the one dated 06.10.2017 and the other dated 21.02.2019. The applicant has also challenged the order of suspension dated 11.01.2019.

The principal contention urged by the applicant is that the authority who issued the impugned proceedings was on the post of Director General in a look after charge, and not on regular basis. It is also stated that the Executive Committee of the respondent organisation is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings, and even if the power can be said to have been delegated to the Director General, the record does not disclose that the steps taken by the Director General were ratified by the Executive Committee.

We heard Shri Rakesh Nautiyal, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S. M. Zulfiqar Alam, learned counsel for the respondents at the stage of admission itself.

The first premise on which the impugned orders are challenged is that the Director General was holding the post just on look after charge basis. However, a perusal of the order dated 03.04.2017 discloses that an officer who was holding the post of Additional Secretary (RD) was "appointed to the post of Director General". As a clarificatory measure, it was mentioned that he shall hold the post of Director General, in addition to the existing assignment, namely, Additional Secretary. This is different from a mere arrangement of look after charge. Therefore, the first contention of the applicant cannot be accepted.

Coming to the second one, there is nothing on record to doubt that the power was delegated to the Director General. The doubt of the applicant is only as regards the approval of the proceedings, by the Executive Committee. The applicant has gained access to one resolution of the Executive Committee, and on finding that there is no mention about the action taken again him in that, he is drawing a presumption that the approval was not accorded. It is only when there exists unimpeachable material to show that the steps contemplated under the bye laws were not taken, that a possibility may exist for the Tribunal to interfere with the impugned orders.

We, therefore, dismiss the OA. However, we make it clear that if the applicant is able to get hold of any material in support of his contention, it shall be open to him to take necessary steps in accordance with law.