2009 (7) TMI 1221 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Memorandum dated 10.10.2006 proposing minor penalty.
2. Tribunal's decision to quash the Memorandum and its consequential directions.
3. Allegations against the respondent No.1 and their investigation.
4. Role of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and procedural safeguards.
5. Jurisdiction of courts and tribunals in interfering with disciplinary proceedings.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Memorandum dated 10.10.2006 proposing minor penalty:
The respondent No.1, a Member of Indian Engineering Service, was issued a Memorandum dated 10.10.2006, proposing imputation of minor penalty against him. The allegations included unauthorized absence from duty and making false allegations against colleagues and superiors. The Central Vigilance Commission advised initiation of minor penalty proceedings against the respondent No.1.

2. Tribunal's decision to quash the Memorandum and its consequential directions:
The respondent No.1 filed OA No. 1003 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking quashing of the Memorandum. The Tribunal set aside the Memorandum and directed expunging any adverse remarks in his ACR and granted consequential benefits. The Tribunal based its decision on the ground that the allegations were trivial and showed bias and a pre-determined attitude of the authorities.

3. Allegations against the respondent No.1 and their investigation:
The main allegations included making baseless complaints against superiors, unauthorized disconnection of Allahabad-Mirzapur PCM, failure to implement IUC for M/s Essar, and unauthorized suppression of CLI for WLL service connection. The investigation found the allegations made by respondent No.1 to be baseless. The respondent No.1 argued that the transfer of certain officers indicated some truth in his complaints, but the court did not accept this argument.

4. Role of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and procedural safeguards:
The disciplinary action was initiated on the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission, which acts as a safeguard against motivated disciplinary actions. The memorandum was issued by order and in the name of the President, and the CVC would need to be consulted again before any final decision.

5. Jurisdiction of courts and tribunals in interfering with disciplinary proceedings:
The court emphasized that tribunals and courts should not interfere with disciplinary proceedings at the stage of framing charges. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the Disciplinary Authority. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments to support this view, including Union of India v. Upendra Singh, Union of India & Another v. Ashok Kacker, State of Punjab and Others v. Ajit Singh, and Union of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana.

Conclusion:
The Writ Petition is allowed, and the order dated 25.7.08 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside. The respondent No.1 is directed to reply to the memorandum and face the disciplinary proceedings. The court found no justification for quashing the disciplinary proceedings merely because of the clubbing of old unauthorized absence with other allegations. The respondent No.1 still has the opportunity to convince the Disciplinary Authority of the bona fides of his complaints.