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

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 the charge-sheet prejudiced the Petitioner's promotion prospects, leading to a favorable outcome for the Petitioner. The Court also found discriminatory treatment in the disciplinary proceedings compared to another individual involved, emphasizing the principle of equality. The Petitioner's promotion as Pay and Accounts Officer was directed to proceed, and the petition was allowed with no costs incurred.

---

---

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.

---