Through the present Original Application, the Applicant has challenged the report of the Disciplinary Authority of the Respondent, whereby, the Respondent had concluded that one Charge has not been proved and the remaining three charges has been partially proved. 

It was the contention of the Applicant that no reason has been given to substantiate the conclusion of the charges which are partially proved i.e., as to which portion of the Charge is proved and which portion is not proved. It was further contended by the Applicant that all the charged are inter connected and since the Charge No. 1 is not proved and then how can other charges be partially proved. It was further submitted by the Applicant that the Investigating Officer needs to point out as to which part is proved and which part of the charge is not proved and since the same has not been identified and therefore, proper action could not be taken by the Applicant. Furthermore, it was prayed by the Applicant that since, the outcome is not substantiated by valid reason and therefore, the report in question along with the directions therein, merits to be quashed.

The said submissions of the Applicant was objected to by the Respondent on the ground that the present Original Application is not at all maintainable because although by way of present Original Application, the Applicant is challenging the Report of the Disciplinary Committee, but is not challenging the Inquiry Report and that in the present case, the Principle of Merger will apply as the Inquiry Report forms a part of the Report of Disciplinary Committee. It was further submitted on behalf of the Respondent that Charges are not interconnected and merely because first charge is not proved, will have no impact on the remaining charges. It was further submitted that the scope Judicial Review in Inquiry Matters are very narrow. It was also submitted that the Order under challenge was passed only after granting proper opportunity to the Applicant and after duly examining the facts and evidence on record. It was also submitted that a mere perusal of all the Article of Charges and the explanation to conclusion given, can clearly depict that as to which part is proved and which part is unproved and further as how the conclusion of Partially Proved has been reached at.

After hearing the arguments advanced by the parties, the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal was of the opinion that the Original Application is maintainable. Furthermore, it was also the opinion of the Hon'ble Tribunal that the Report of Disciplinary Authority does not clearly points out as to which part is proved and which part is not proved and since, the Report of the Disciplinary Authority is passed relying upon the Report of Inquiry Officer and therefore, to that extent it has not clarified that the reasons for the for the portion which has been proved and for the portions which has not been proved. The Hon'ble Tribunal was of the opinion that the Respondent is correct in saying that the scope of jurisdiction for intervention is narrow and that the Hon'ble Tribunal is guided by the decision of Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran.

In view of the above mentioned submissions and the opinion framed, the Hon'ble Tribunal partly allowed the present Original Application with liberty to the Respondent to re-initiate the proceedings from the stage of issuance of Charge Sheet and further directing the Respondent to conclude the Disciplinary Proceedings before the Applicant retires upon attaining the age of superannuation.

COUNSEL WHO APPEARED
  • Mr. K K Rai, Senior Advocate, Ms. Medha Tandon, Ms. Seroshi Chatterjee and Mr. Ravilochan Dali Barthi, Advocates for Applicant
  • Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, Additional Standing Counsel and Mr. Harshit Kiran, Advocate for Respondents
IMPORTANT LINKS
This is simple Text for Article.
MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter, or join our WhatsApp Group. You can also subscribe to our Newsletter for Email Updates. MyLawman always tries to maintain the accuracy and correctness of the post. MyLawman does not take any responsibility for the accuracy of the Posts. The post has been shared as we received it from our staff and the submission form.