9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iry Officer cannot take it on record as a genuine document - In the present case in the absence of any list of witnesses, there was no means by which the documents could have been proved by the Department in the inquiry proceedings. Delay in conducting enquiry - HELD THAT:- It is fairly well-settled that an inordinate unexplained delay itself causes prejudice to an accused employee - In each of the present cases there was no valid explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating the preliminary enquiry. Petition dismissed. - W.P.(C) 4471/2014, W.P.(C) 6108/2014, W.P.(C) 6279/2014, W.P.(C) 6296/2014, W.P.(C) 7635/2014, W.P.(C) 7965/2014,W.P.(C) 8130/2014,W.P.(C) 8134/2014,W.P.(C) 3439/2015,W.P.(C) 3483/2015,W.P.(C) 8338/2015,W.P.(C) 9654/2015 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2019 - S. MURALIDHAR AND TALWANT SINGH JJ. Petitioners Through: Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr. Vedesh Dubey, Advocate Respondent Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate and Mr. Rajesh Chauhan, Advocates for Mr. Sachin Chauhan Advocate Mr. J. Thalapathy Sri Ram and Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy, Advocates Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate O R D E R Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout any delay and to issue a charge-sheet within a period of six months from the date of the subject incident and base such charge-sheet on the findings in a preliminary enquiry. She further pointed out that the Department itself had admitted that the original documents of the case were not available and that in the absence of such original documents, the entire proceedings would stand vitiated. 7. Ms. Chaudhary also sought to obtain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which confirmed that a hard copy of the original documents of Bills of Entry presented by the Customs House Agent/ Importer were not available. 8. A further contention of Ms. Chaudhary was there were no witnesses in order to prove the allegations set out in the MoC and that, therefore, the MoC could not be proved at all. Reliance was placed on the decisions of Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh, 1990 Supp (1) SCC 738, The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department v. L. Srinivasan (1996) 2 SCC 157, Food Corporation of India v. V.P. Bhatia (1998) 9 SCC 131, State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Radha Krishan (1998) 4 SCC 154, State of Punjab v. Chaman L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tage of issuance of show cause notice. It is further submitted that the charges were grave in nature and that in these circumstances; the CAT ought not to have interfered merely on the ground that a list of witnesses was not furnished to the delinquent along with the charge memo . Thirdly, it is submitted that the delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings is by itself not fatal, unless it is shown that such delay has caused prejudice to the Respondents. 13. The Court is not persuaded by any of the above contentions of the Petitioners. The Court notes that under Rule 14(3) (4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, it was incumbent, where the Government proposes to hold an inquiry, to draw the substance of imputations which would contain a list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom, the Articles of Charge are proposed to be sustained . The said rule reads as under: 14 (3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant under this rule and rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up (i) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the prejudice of the respondent. 27. It was the duty of the appellants to have proved documents Exh. A-1 to Exh. A-10 in accordance with law. Filing, of the Inquiry Report or the evidence adduced during the domestic enquiry would not partake the character of admissible evidence in a court of law. That documentary evidence was also required to be proved by the appellants in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, which they have failed to do. 16. Although, as pointed out by learned counsel for the Petitioners, in disciplinary inquiry proceedings the rules of the CPC and the Evidence Act may not strictly apply, it is basic that the mere production of a document is not sufficient even in a disciplinary inquiry. There has to be some witness to prove such a document. Without a witness to prove the documents, the Enquiry Officer cannot take it on record as a genuine document. In the present case in the absence of any list of witnesses, there was no means by which the documents could have been proved by the Department in the inquiry proceedings. 17. In the present cases, if indeed the MoC refer to documents, the originals of which were not ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harges. But how long a delay is too long always depends upon the 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. The order of the Supreme Court dated 14th May, 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 5179/2018 (Pavan Ved v. Union of India) would also be relevant in this context. The Supreme Court was considering a challenge to a decision dated 25th August, 2017 of this Court in the W.P.(C) 215/2016 (Pavan Ved v.Union of India), by which the Court had dismissed the accused employee s petition, declining to interfere with disciplinary proceedings in which there was an unexplained delay of 9 years between the submission of the report of the Inquiry and the issuance of show cause notice by the DA. The Supreme Court set aside this Court s judgment and allowed the appeal noting that there was a massive unexplained delay of over 9 years between the date of enquiry report and date of a show-cause notice . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
