Union of India (UOI) vs B.L. Sinha

Anil Kumar, J.—The petitioner has impugned the order dated 13th July, 2009 in OA No. 2277 of 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi titled B.L. Sinha v. Union of India and Ors. allowing the respondent�s petition and setting aside the major penalty order of reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for one year with cumulative effect.

During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner was directed to disclose about the sealed cover of the respondent. Pursuant to said order dated 26th November, 2009, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has informed that the sealed cover of the respondent was opened and the respondent has not been recommended for departmental promotion.

The respondent was working as Joint Director (JD) in Grade - I and dealing with the applications u/s 297 of the Companies Act and penalty proceedings were initiated against him on a complaint filed by one Chartered Accountant.

The allegations against the respondent were that while processing the applications received u/s 297 of the Act, the respondent had raised irrelevant queries not germane to the subject matter which had resulted in delay of disposal of the applications. Two charges were framed against the respondent and the charge for non-disposal of application u/s 297 of the Companies Act as per the Citizen Charter, was not pressed in the inquiry by the petitioner. The Tribunal had yet considered the charge of non-disposal of application u/s 297 of the Companies Act as per the Citizen Charter, as the power to grant of approval u/s 297(1) exclusively vested in the Regional Director and could not be delegated by him and therefore failure in disposal of an application which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Director, could not be imputed against the respondent. The Tribunal also noted that though the charge was not pressed, the imputation against the respondent was not that he did not process the application. As it was not within his exclusive jurisdiction to dispose of such applications, the charge was held to be misconceived and vague. The Tribunal had also noted that the respondent could not be held guilty of alleged misconduct on the part of his superiors.

Regarding the charge of raising irrelevant queries, it has been observed by the Tribunal that in the memorandum issued to the respondent, no such irrelevant queries had been imputed in respect of the companies except M/s. KPMG. The inquiry officer has also not held respondent guilty of raising alleged irrelevant queries.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any of the queries raised by the respondent which can be termed irrelevant. In any case, the queries put up by the respondent had been approved by the Regional Director. The fact that the queries put up by the respondent were approved by the Regional Director has not been denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner after taking instructions from the petitioner�s representative present in the court.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to summary of proceedings and contended that the respondent had demanded filing of compounding application by Endurance System (India) Pvt. Ltd. According to him the said company had replied that the application seeking compounding of offences had already been filed by the said company. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in the circumstances the queries raised were irrelevant as there had not been any violation of Section 297 by the said company and, in any case, the application for compounding had been filed on behalf of said company.

Learned Counsel the respondent has pointed out that the plea on behalf of the petitioner is ex facie false, as in reply to application under Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 31st July, 2007, it has been disclosed that the applications for compounding as alleged by the said company were not filed. In the circumstances, the allegations against the respondent for raising irrelevant queries are not made out and consequently the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of punishment imposing a penalty of reduction to lower stage in time scale of pay by one stage for one year with cumulative effect cannot be faulted in the facts and circumstances.

In our view, the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or such error which will require interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is dismissed.