9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emorandum and consequential disciplinary proceedings. Vide order dated 25.7.2008, the Tribunal set aside the Memorandum dated 10.10.2006 and also directed that any adverse remarks in his ACR on account of minor penalty should also be expunged. He was also held entitled to all consequential benefits. The decision of the Tribunal was based on the ground that absence of the respondent No.1 from duty occurred in the year 2003 and was a trivial one and their clubbing with the allegations of being a whistle blower clearly showed bias towards him and a pre-determined attitude of the authorities. The Tribunal felt that there was a danger of bias as the complaint made by him had not been proved to be vexatious and the Officers, against whom complaint had been made, had been transferred. The Tribunal found that initiation of enquiry was held by oblique motive and extraneous consideration, in order to teach a lesson to the respondent No.1. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, Union of India has come to this Court by way of this Writ Petition. 3. According to the petitioner, a complaint was received by them through Central Vigilance Commission on 10.6.2005 and the same was got inve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n if the charge of unauthorised absence from duty is excluded from the memorandum, the respondent No.1 was still required to reply to and meet the other allegations including that of making serious but baseless allegations against his superior officers. Therefore, we cannot justify quashing of the disciplinary proceedings merely because the Writ Petitioner clubbed three years old unauthorized absence from duty alongwith other allegations, in the statement of allegations against the respondent No.1. 5. The statement of imputation of mis-conduct annexed to the memorandum issued to the respondent No.1 shows that the allegations made by him against the GMT and DGM (P D) were found to be baseless and not proved. Though the respondent No.1 claimed to be a Whistle Blower, it was for the competent authorities in BSNL to enquire into the allegations made by him and find out whether they are true or baseless. It is not that no investigation was carried out into the allegations made by the respondent No.1. The statement of imputation of mis- conduct would show that investigation was carried out and it was established that: (a) All payments were received regarding providing 14 PCM to pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued to him can still not be quashed because the allegations comprised in it include, besides unauthorised absence from duty, the following and there is no reason why the disciplinary authority should not take a view on these allegations, after considering the reply of respondent No.1.: (i) In spite, after observing the replies of the said Shri Azam Siddiqui and office records, it has been found that Shri Azam Siddiqui, while working as DE Pratapgarh, disconnected Allahabad-Mirzapur PCM from OCB on 20.05.2003 without any order. An explanation was called from Shri Azam Siddiqui for which no reply was submitted by him. (ii) He failed to implement IUC from 01.05.2003 to 23.05.2003 for M/s Essar, in spite of order at letter No. XXP/2000 dated 30.04.2003. 7. The case of the respondent No.1 is that he was a Whistle-Blower having exposed the misdeeds of his superior officers. The Tribunal had noted that the office order dated 17.5.04 issued by the Vigilance Commissioner obligated it to ensure that no punitive action was taken by concerned administrative authority merely because the complainant was a Whistle Blower. We find that the Tribunal itself has further noted that if the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... When the matter went back to the Tribunal, it went into the correctness of the charges on the basis of the material produced by the respondent No.1 and quashed the charges holding that the charges do not indicate any corrupt motive or any culpability on the part of the respondent No.1. The order of the tribunal did not find favour to the Hon'ble Supreme Court which feet that the tribunal had undertaken the inquiry which ought to be held by the Disciplinary Authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as under: In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the Tribunal or Court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The Tribunal cannot take over the functions of the Disciplinary Authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the Disciplinary Authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High Court, accepting the explanation offered by the respondent, has proceeded on the basis that there was no merit in the charges levelled against the respondent. We are unable to uphold this approach of the High Court. 12. In Union of India Anr. V. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 906, a charge memo was issued to the respondent No.1 who instead of replying to the same, filed an A.O. before the CAT. He was directed by the Tribunal to give reply to the charge memo. In place of filing the reply, he filed Writ Petition in the High Court which was allowed. Setting aside the order of the High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: The reason why ordinarily a Writ Petition should not be entertained against a mere show- cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the Writ Petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
