Tushar Ranjan Mohanty vs Union Of India And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant is an officer in the Indian Statistical Service. He filed this OA feeling aggrieved by the memorandum of charges dated 12.12.2014 (Annexure AA-1), and the consequential order of punishment dated 10.09.2015 (Annexure AA-2) imposing upon him minor penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension. On earlier occasion, the applicant filed an OA against the charge memorandum. During pendency of the OA, the order of punishment was passed. The said OA was dismissed leaving it open to the applicant to institute fresh proceedings vis-à-vis the charge memorandum as well as the order of punishment.

The statement of imputation annexed to the charge memorandum contained two articles of charge. The gist of the allegations is that though the study leave granted to the applicant to enable him to study Ph.D was withdrawn vide memorandum dated 09.01.1998, he got sanctioned leave from 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2002 by suppressing the relevant facts, while working as OSD to the Minister, Water Resources. In the second article of charge it was mentioned that though he executed a bond on 22.12.2000 stating that he would pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the Government on failing to resume duty after completion of study, he neither informed the Government till 30.06.2014 about the non-completion of the course of study, nor the amount was remitted. The applicant submitted his explanation, and not satisfied with that, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment as mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

The applicant argued his case in person, and we heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents also.

In a way, it can be said that the applicant is one of the main sustainers of the Tribunal. Though the respondents state that the applicant filed nearly 500 to 600 cases in one forum or the other, the applicant stated that according to him, the figure would be around 350. The nature of service rendered by a person who instituted such large number of cases, can easily be imagined. In almost every case that we came across in the recent past, the file would be of not less than 500 pages. Hardly any week passes in the Tribunal without his appearance. Unless the heads of department or superiors of the applicant are men of superlative qualities, it would not have been possible for them to bestow any attention worth its name to the official duties, having regard to the quantum and nature of the litigation in which they were kept busy by the applicant. Since the department has pivotal duties, namely, providing statistical data on vital aspects, the impact of the disturbance and mental agony caused to the officers would certainly have its own effect on the nature of data provided by them, all thanks to the applicant, who feels that there is no force on the earth that can prevent him from doing whatever he wants, and there is no provision or principle of law that can regulate his unending and uncontrolled litigation, not only in relation to his own service matters, but whoever he comes across. Howsoever desirable and respectable our democracy and its concomitant, the freedom of speech, are, we cannot wish away the by-products of such freedom in the form of the activities undertaken by the applicant.

On a specific question as to whether he applies for leave whenever he appears in the court, the applicant stated that he does not apply for leave, and he would manage to work even after attending the courts. While the volume of litigation is one aspect, we find that the applicant does not feel any restraint in the drafting or the use of intemperate language against anyone. Though it may appear to be somewhat extraordinary or peculiar, we intend to demonstrate a sample of his pleadings in this OA itself, by extracting a small portion thereof. The reason for which we intend to do so is that with the disposal of each case, the applicant is feeling triumphant and heroic:

"4.6. That with regard to non-issuance of a Show Cause Notice before the impugned Minor Penalty Charge-Sheet dated 12.12.2014 (Annexure : AA-1) was issued, the Applicant wishes to rely upon the Judgments in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 : 1967 SCR (2) 625; M. Gopala Krishna Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1968 SC 240 : 1968 SCR (1) 355; A.K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 150; Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala, [1969] 1 S.C.R. 317; D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., 1993 SCR (3) 930 : 1993 SCC (3) 259; Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, [1978] 2 SCR 272 at 308F; Sweadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 664; R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatehchand Nursingh Das v. Settlement Commission (IT & WT) & Anr., 1989 AIR 1038, 1989 SCR (1) 335; M/s Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 862; Amal Kumar Ghatak v. State of Assam & Others, A.I.R. 1971 Assam 32; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ranusagar Power Co. and Others, AIR 1988 SC 1737: 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 627; K.I. Shephard & Ors. Etc. Etc v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 686 : 1988 SCR (1) 188; and Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore v. The State of Mysore, 1970(2) SCR 600.

4.7 That with regard to question of Undue Delay, the issue in the Charge Sheet relates to the Year 2001-2002 and is now being brought up. Therefore, the issue is hit by Doctrine of Laches and Undue Delay. The law now is well settled that undue delay in holding an inquiry into the misconduct is fatal to the inquiry. The Applicant would like to place reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Statet of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570 : JT 1995 (2) 18 : 1995 SCALE (1) 390; State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan, AIR 1998 SC 1833 : 1998 (2) SCR 693 : (1998) 4 SCC 154 : 1998 (2) SCALE 672 : 1998 (3) JT (SC) 123; P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, AIR 2006 SC 207 : 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 474 : 2005 (6) SCC 636 :2005 (6) SCALE 450 : 2005 (7) JT (SC) 417; M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, 2006 AIR 3475 : 2006 (4) JT (SC) 469; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh, (1990) Supp. SCC 738; P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India & Ors,, AIR 2006 SC 2064 : 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 454 : 2006 (8) SCC 776 : 2006 (5) SCALE 54 : 2006 (5) JT (SC) 235; District Council, Amraoti through Secretary vs. Vithal Vinayak Bapat, AIR 1941 Nagpur 125; L.W. Middleton v. Horry Play Fair, AIR 1925 Cat. 87; Government of A.P.V.V. Appala Swamy, 2007 (2) SCR 19 : 2007 (3) SCALE 1; Secretary of the Govt. Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan, [1996] 3 SCC 157; Deputy Registrar, Co-op Societies. Faizabad v. Sachindra Nath Pandev, [1995] 3 SCC 134; The Secretary, Forest Department & v. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury, (2009) 7 SCC 305; Meeran Rawther v. State of Kerala, 2001 (5) SLR 518 (of the Kerala High Court); and Rajbir Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1997 (7) SLR 422 (Punjab and Haryana High Court)."

"4.10 That as far as the third ground is concerned, the fact that the Recovery Order has since been quashed vide Order/Judgment dated 15.01.2016 (Annexure : AA-4) is enough to uphold the ground. The Applicant wishes to refer to and rely upon the judgments in the cases of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 7 SCC 605; Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley,(1956) 1 QB 702; State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Budhikota Subharao, 1993 SCR (2) 311 : 1993 SCC(3) 339 : JT 1993 (3) 379 : 1993 SCACLE (2) 36; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 : 1994 SCC (1) 1 : JT 1993 (6) 331 : 1993 SCALE (4) 277; Gowrishankar & Anr. v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust & Ors., 1996 SCC (3) 310 : JT 1996 (2) 560 : 1996 SCALE (2) 454; C handra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verms, 1995 (4) SCC 483, 1994 (2) SCALE 745, (1995) 3 SCC 757; Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. M/s Essar Oil Limited, [2004] 3 S.C.C. 304; Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration, 1963 Supp. 2 SCR 585; Indian Bank v. Satyam Febres (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1996 (5) SCC 550; Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors., (2003 (8) SCC 319; Khawaja v. Secretary of State of Home Deptt., (1983) 1 All ER 765; Shrisht Dhawan (Smt.) v. M/s Shaw Brothers, 1992 (1) SCC 534; Derry v. Peek, (1886-90) All ER Rep 1 : (1889) 14 AC 337 (HL); Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, 2002 (1) SCC 100; Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, 2003 (8) SCC 311; Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. and Anotgher, 2004 (3) SCC 1; Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 3028; Rex Vs. Duchess of Kingston, 2 Smith L.C. 687; Kinch Vs. Walcott, 1929 Appeal Cases 482; Paranjpe Vs. Kanade, ILR 38 Calcutta 936; Manindra Nath Mittra Vs. Hari Mondal, 24 Calcutta Weekly Notes 133; Esmile-Ud-Din Biswas and Anr. Vs. Shajoran Nessa Bewa & Ors., 132 Indian Cases 897; Nemchand Tantia Vs. Kishinchand Chellaram (India) Ltd., 63 Calcutta Weekly Notes 740; Patch Vs. Ward, 1867 (3) L.R. Chancery Appeals 203; Jai Narain Parasurampuria (Dead) v. Pushpa Devi Saraf, (2006) 7 SCC 756; Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. vs. Girdhari Lal Yadav, (2004) 6 SCC 325; Ishwar Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr., (2005) 7 SCC 190; Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B. & Anr. vs. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare, (2005) 10 SCC 465; Smt. Satya vs. Shri Teja Singh, (1975) 1 SCC 120; Mahboob Sahab vs. Sayed Ismil & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 693; Asharfi Lal vs. Smt. Koili (Dead) by LRs., (1995) 4 SCC 163; Lillykutty v. Scrutiny Committee, S.C. & S.T., AIR 2005 SC 4313 : (2005) 8 SCC 283 : 2005 (8) SCALE 288; Vijay Shekhar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2004) 4 SCC 666; A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., (2007) 4 SCC 221; Lazarus Estates and Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council, 1956 AC 336 : (1956) 1 All ER 855 : (1956) 2 WLR 888; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 581 : JT 2000 (3) SC 151; Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar, 2008 (12) SCR 992 : (2008) 9 SCC 54 : 2008 (12) SCALE 252 : 2008 (9) JT (SC) 445; Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 556; K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2008) (1) SCALE 227; State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Suryachandra Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149; T. Vijendradas v. M. Subramanian, (2007) 8 SCC 750; Tulsi and Others v. Chandrika Prasad and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 322; Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 872; General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v. Overtown, 1904 AC 515; and Short v. Poole Corporation, (1926) 1 Ch 66; and Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 872."

We are not reproducing other similar clauses, only with a view to reduce the length of this order. The applicant does not bother about the rules framed in this regard, or the principles governing pleadings. The close proximity between his office, the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court has turned to be a boon to the applicant and with that, he appears to be playing mind games on his employers and others associated with the limitless litigation initiated by him.

One can easily understand the difficulty that is faced by the respondents in answering such pleadings, and that of the Tribunal in coming to grip of the controversy. Had the pleadings of this nature been drafted by a practising advocate, serious strictures would have been passed, or even the office itself would have refused to receive the same. However, being afraid of the tenacity of the applicant, nobody obstructs him at any place.

Reverting to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the applicant procured leave, though the permission for study of Ph.D was withdrawn. The other charge is about non-compliance with the conditions contained in the bond executed by the applicant. From the prolonged and complicated arguments advanced by the applicant, one of the points that we discern is that at one stage, an order was passed against him, proposing to recover the salary for the period of leave, and since that order was set aside by this Tribunal in an OA, the very basis for the present disciplinary proceedings would cease to exist. It is difficult to accept such contention. Mere failure of the department to recover the salary for the leave period cannot lead to wiping away of the delinquency on the part of the applicant.

Attempt is made to urge that the charge memorandum was not approved by the disciplinary authority. Firstly, no such ground was raised in the pleadings. Assuming that it is a legal contention, the papers filed by the applicant himself demonstrate that the concerned Minister accorded approval for the charge memorandum.

Though arguments were advanced to the effect that the relevant documents were not furnished, we do not find any such defect in the proceedings. Further, what is imposed is a minor punishment, and the nature of scrutiny in such matters is substantially different from the one that is to be undertaken where major penalties are to be imposed.

We accordingly dismiss the OA. We part with this case with the fond hope that the applicant would, at least hereafter, spare the Tribunal of any frivolous and unnecessary litigation, so that the limited time at the disposal of the Tribunal is utilized in adjudicating genuine and deserving cases.

There shall be no order as to costs.