Union of India (UOI) vs Shri P.K. Sharma

A.K. Pathak, J.—Respondent joined as Peon with the Petitioner on 9th September, 1974. Later on, he was appointed as LDC on 20th October, 1981 through Staff Selection Commission.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Respondent and a charge-sheet dated 7th October, 1993 for major penalty was served upon him with the allegations that he incited members of staff on 16th July, 1993 and 3rd September, 1993 to lodge fictitious complaints against the superior officers and his this act was in violation of Rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1972. Initially, Handwriting Expert''s report dated 29th September, 1993 of Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) was not annexed with the charge-sheet and the same was supplied later on. Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27th December, 2004 to the Disciplinary Authority. Enquiry Officer held Respondent guilty of charge levelled against him.

Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 25th July, 2005 imposed penalty of dismissal from service on the Respondent. Appeal filed by the Respondent was disposed of by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 4th January, 2006 whereby the punishment was modified to compulsory retirement.

Aggrieved by the orders passed by Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, Respondent preferred an Original Application bearing OA No. 20/2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal). Vide impugned order dated 3rd June, 2008 Tribunal set aside the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority and directed the Petitioner to forthwith reinstate the Respondent in service. Tribunal also directed that Respondent shall be entitled to all consequential benefits as per law.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying therein that order passed by the Tribunal be quashed and/or set aside.

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority did not reflect application of mind as reasons for arriving at conclusion that Respondent was guilty of charges levelled against him, had not been given. Tribunal was also of the view that no sufficient evidence was available before the Enquiry Officer to conclude that Respondent was guilty of charges. Handwriting Expert''s report relied upon by the Enquiry Officer was not proved as the maker of report was not produced in the witness box by the prosecution during the enquiry proceedings and could not have been read in evidence against the Respondent. Tribunal also found that none of the witnesses deposed that Respondent had incited the members of the staff to lodge complaints against the superior officers. No witness was examined to prove that complaints were lodged at the instance of the Respondent. Tribunal also considered the fact that the allegations against the Respondent pertained to September 1993 and the charge-sheet was issued in the year 1994 itself but enquiry was initiated only in the year 2004 as such there was delay of about 10 years which remained unexplained. While relying on judgments of Supreme Court, Tribunal concluded that the delay had also prejudiced the Respondent.

We have perused the copy of the enquiry report, order of the Disciplinary Authority and order of the Appellate Authority and we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. Report of the Handwriting Expert was placed on record but the same was not proved by producing maker of the said report in the witness box. Petitioner should have produced maker of the report to prove the report and in such an eventuality Respondent would have had opportunity to cross-examine him to test the veracity of the report. This was all the more necessary as none of the witnesses examined by the Petitioner made a statement that Respondent had incited his subordinates to file complaints against the superior officers. Tribunal has also rightly observed that there was delay of 10 years in initiating the enquiry, which had prejudiced the Respondent.

Judgement relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Mast Ram, is in different context and is of no help to the Petitioner. The question involved in the said case was as to whether report of Ballistic Expert can be used in evidence in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 293 of Criminal Procedure Code.

We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the findings returned by the Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.