9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view that the CAT was in error in concluding that no prejudice was caused to the Petitioner on account of the delay in issuing him the charge sheet and that on merits the charge-sheet issued to the Petitioner was justified in law. Petition allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be conducted for allegation of tempering of tender. CVC vide OM No. 288/2007/8-68348 dated 22.12.2009, directed to furnish the Investigation Report to the commission. Thereafter the preliminary inquiry was conducted and the Investigation. Report was submitted by the Vigilance Unit of the CPWD vide F. No. 12/1/1/(C-52/07)/2010-VS.I. on 15.01.2015. As such matter remained under active consideration." 8. The aforementioned complaint of M/s. Satish Kumar Gupta was in fact received in 2007 itself. It is seen from the above stand of the Respondents that it took almost ten years for the investigation report to be submitted to the Vigilance Unit of the CPWD. There is no indication that the Petitioner, in any manner, contributed to that delay. 9. As a result of the above report being submitted to the Vigilance Unit of the CPWD, the charge-memo dated 2nd September, 2015 was issued to the Petitioner. The sole charge against the Petitioner reads as under: "Tender of M/s. Raja Ram, Contractor for the work "C/o. Main Institute Building Residential Quarters, Electrical Sub-Station & Enquiry Office for IHM Kurukshetra i/c Water Supply, Sanitary Installation, Drainage, Ele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such delay. On merits, it was contended that the Petitioner was responsible for the safe custody of the tender document during the scrutiny stage, but failed to ensure the same. It was not disputed that only a "recordable warning" had been issued to Mr. Vashist, the then EE. 15. The CAT noted the contentions of the parties and the judgments relied upon by them. According to the CAT, the handing over of the tender documents by the EE to Mr. Dua, who was working under the Petitioner, did not absolve the Petitioner of his responsibility of ensuring their safe custody. It was further observed that the Petitioner had not shown before the CAT that any prejudice had been caused to him because of the delay in the issuance of the charge-sheet. 16. The submissions of learned counsel for the parties have been considered. The Court has also examined the impugned order of the CAT in light of the documents on record. 17. The statement of Mr. Dua, as recorded in the investigation which led to the issuance of the charge-sheet, reveals that after the papers were entrusted to him by the EE for checking the tender documents for preparing the comparative statement, the tender document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances." 21. In the present case, the Court finds that the complaint of Mr. Satish Kumar Gupta, one of the contractors whose bid was rejected, was received in 2007 itself, but the investigation pursuant to that complaint stretched on till 2015. During this entire period, there was no question of the Petitioner contributing to the delay. In other words, the Respondents have no plausible explanation for an eight years delay in completing even the preliminary enquiry. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner's case for further promotion as Pay and Accounts Officer ('PAO') was deferred in view of the pendency of the above disciplinary proceedings. The recommendations in regard to the Petitioner's promotion as PAO were kept in a sealed cover. 22. The CAT also appears to have overlooked the legal position as regards the discriminatory treatment meted out to a charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HC Vijay Pal was the real culprit who, besides departmental proceedings, was an accused in the excise case filed against him by the Excise Staff of Andhra Pradesh for violating the Excise Prohibition Orders operating in the State. The appellate authority exonerated HC Vijay Pal mainly on the ground of his acquittal by the criminal court in the Excise case and after exoneration, he has been promoted to the higher post, whereas the appeal and the revision filed by the appellant against the order of punishment have been rejected on technical ground that he has not exercised proper and effective control over HC Vijay Pal at the time of commission of the Excise offence by him in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The order of the disciplinary authority would reveal that for the last about three decades the appellant has served the Police Department of Haryana in different capacity with unblemished record of service. 20. In the backdrop of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment upon the appellant for exhibiting slackness in the discharge of duties during his visit to Hyderabad when HC Vijay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
