9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or motive issued a memorandum dated 20-12-1995 assailing the quasi judicial orders passed by her as wrong without any evidence. Petitioner denied the allegations made against her by a reply dated 11-6-1996. Enquiry was held in respect of the said memorandum of charge dated 20-12-1995. Petitioner was examined on 4-12-1995. Enquiry Officer gave a finding that the petitioner was guilty in the matter. Central Vigilance Commissioner, agreed with the second respondent s proposal to impose major penalty on the petitioner. Petitioner submitted her representation dated 27-6-2001 to the second respondent in the matter. Thereafter, she filed an Application in OA No. 955 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, seeking to quash both the memorandum of charges and the enquiry officer s report The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner within 90 days in terms of the law declared in Nagarkar s case reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 772 (S.C.) = (1999) 7 SCC 409. First and second respondents did not take any decision within the time stipulated by the Tribunal. Petitioner approached the Tribunal with another application in OA No. 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard Sri Padke, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He took us through the entire bulky paper book to say that the Tribunal is wrong in rejecting his application. He would invite our attention to the material facts and material documents to say that the articles of charge in the given circumstances are legally and factually unsustainable. He would further say that the petitioner was exercising quasi judicial functions and those quasi judicial proceedings cannot be subjected to enquiry in terms of the case laws, according to him. He concludes by saying that the present case is fully covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India and Others, 1999 SCC (L S) 1299. 5. Per contra, Sri Vasudeva Rao, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, would say with all vehemence that no case is made out by the petitioner warranting interference. He wants the petition to be dismissed. 6. After hearing, we have carefully perused the material on record. 7. Indian Constitution stands for justice - social, economical and political. There are three essential wings which operate for the purpose of enforcement of various articles of the Constitution of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer. The legality of the orders with reference to the nine assessments may be questioned in appeal or revision under the Act. But we have no doubt in our mind that the Government is not precluded from taking the disciplinary action for violation of the Conduct Rules. Thus, we conclude that the disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases : (i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty; (ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty; (iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant; (iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers; (v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party; (vi) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great. 29. The instances above catalogued are not exhaustive. However, we may add that for a mere technical violation or merely because the order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. Merely because penalty was not imposed and the Board in exercise of its power directed filing of appeal against the order-in-original passed by the appellant could not be enough to proceed against him. There is no other instance to show that in similar case, the appellant invariably imposed penalty. Ultimately, the court ruled that it was not the case for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. 11. In P.C. Joshi v. State of U.P. and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 491, the Apex Court considered the judicial power vis-a-vis the misconduct. The Court ruled in para-8 of its judgment reading as under : There are other two charges in respect of which the appellant was found to be guilty. One relates to grant of order of stay of disconnection of telephone for non-payment of Rs. 410 to the Telephone Department in a consumer dispute filed by a senior government doctor. All that he did in his capacity as In-charge District Judge on the assumption that the District Judge being the ex officio Chairman of the District Consumer Forum he could grant such an order and that too when one of the members of the Forum has placed the papers before him seeking for orders. At best ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material available in so far as Article No. 1 is concerned. It is mentioned therein that the petitioner did hold discussions with one of the partners. This Article stands on a different facts and that therefore we deem it proper to accept the finding of the Tribunal that no direction can be issued in so far as this Article No. 1 is concerned. 15. Before we conclude, we make it clear that unscrupulous elements have no place in the temple of justice. Corruption in any form including favouritism of different shades/different colour has to be dealt with iron hand in maintaining an unpolluted justice delivery system in this country. But, in that process an official/officer with quasi judicial powers is not to be proceeded against without any factual foundation, and any such proceeding in such cases would be shaking the independence of judiciary. 18. In the result, this petition is partly accepted. Order of the Tribunal in so far as Article No. 1 is concerned is accepted. With regard to Articles Nos. 2, 3 and 4, petitioner is entitled to succeed. However, we deem it proper to observe as a word of caution that in the event of the respondent getting any further information with regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
