2019 (12) TMI 707 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules in favor of Petitioner, sets aside charge-sheet, citing lack of responsibility. Discriminatory treatment found.

Virender Singh Chankot Versus Union of India and Ors.

The Court set aside the charge-sheet issued to the Petitioner, ruling that he was not responsible for the missing tender documents. The delay in issuing ... Disciplinary proceedings - prayer for quashing of charge sheet - principal ground on which the charge-sheet was impugned was that it was extraordinarily belated and the delay itself had caused the Petitioner prejudice - HELD THAT:- 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. This Court is of 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. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the charge-sheet issued to the Petitioner.2. Delay in issuing the charge-sheet and its impact.3. Responsibility for the missing tender documents.4. Discriminatory treatment in disciplinary proceedings.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the charge-sheet issued to the Petitioner:The Petitioner challenged the charge-sheet dated 2nd September 2015, issued after a preliminary inquiry and advice from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The sole charge against the Petitioner was that he failed to ensure the safe custody of tender documents, violating the CPWD Works Manual 2003, para 18.3.16.1, and thereby committing grave misconduct under Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. However, the Court found that the Petitioner was not responsible for the missing pages as they were handed over to Mr. Dua by the EE and never returned to the Petitioner.2. Delay in issuing the charge-sheet and its impact:The Petitioner contended that the delay in issuing the charge-sheet caused him prejudice. The complaint was received in 2007, but the investigation report was only submitted in 2015. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Chamanlal Goel, emphasizing that disciplinary proceedings must be conducted promptly. The delay of eight years was unexplained and prejudiced the Petitioner, affecting his promotion prospects as his case for promotion as Pay and Accounts Officer (PAO) was deferred due to the pending disciplinary proceedings.3. Responsibility for the missing tender documents:The Court examined Section 18.3.16.1 of the CPWD Works Manual, which states that the Divisional Accountant is responsible for the safe custody of tender documents while they remain in the Accounts Branch. The Petitioner had entrusted the documents to the EE, who then handed them over to Mr. Dua. The documents never returned to the Petitioner, absolving him of responsibility for the missing pages. The Court found that the CAT erred in holding the Petitioner responsible for the missing documents.4. Discriminatory treatment in disciplinary proceedings:The Court noted that the EE, who was also responsible for the tender documents, was only issued a 'recordable warning,' whereas major penalty proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner. The Supreme Court's decision in Man Singh v. State of Haryana was cited, which emphasized that similarly situated individuals should be treated equally in disciplinary proceedings. The Court found that the Petitioner was subjected to discriminatory treatment compared to the EE, violating the principle of equality.Conclusion:The Court set aside the CAT's order and quashed the charge-sheet dated 2nd September 2015, issued to the Petitioner. The Court directed that the recommendations regarding the Petitioner's promotion as PAO be carried out, and consequential orders be passed within eight weeks. The petition was allowed, and the pending application was disposed of with no costs.