JUDGMENT
G.L. Gupta, J. (Vice Chairman)
The reliefs claimed in this O.A. are these:
"(a) to direct the respondents to cancel, withdraw and/or rescind the impugned: (i) charge-sheet dated 2.6.94; (ii) enquiry proceedings; (iii) enquiry report dated 11.1.2000; (iv) order of dismissal from service dated 22.11.2000 including the recommendation dated 13.10.2000 of the UPSC; (b) to direct the respondents to allow the applicant to discharge his due duties and functions attached to the post as usual as before till he attains the age of superannuation; (c) to direct the respondents to produce the entire records of the case to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication of the points at issue"
2. The relevant facts. The applicant was a member of the Indian Administrative Service. He was of 1976 batch and belonged to West Bengal cadre. It is averred that the applicant worked in various capacities including Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South) successfully, yet he was superseded in the matter of promotion in April, 1994 and was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.4.94. A charge-sheet dated 2.6.94, containing five charges, was served on him. The charges relate to the ‘misconduct’ defined in the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. The applicant replied to the charge-sheet on 22.6.94. Enquiry was conducted and was concluded on 21.12.99. The applicant submitted his defence against the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry report was ultimately submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The applicant made representation on 25.2.2000 against the report. On 22.11.2000 the Disciplinary Authority passed an order against applicant imposing penalty of dismissal under Rule 6(1) (ix) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The applicant received the order of penalty on 18.12.2000. This O.A. has been filed to challenge the enquiry proceedings as also the order of dismissal.
(i) The case for the applicant is that while he was Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South) in 1982 he had come to know the facts leading to the brutal murder of 17 Anand Margis in broad day-light on Bijan Setu, P.S. Kasba on 30.4.82, but because of the provisions of the Official Secret Act, he was not in a position to disclose the facts but ever since he came to know the motive and the identity of the leaders behind the murder of 17 persons, he put in his apprehension in several notes and correspondence. It is averred that because of that fact he is victum of the vindictive attitude of some of the high ups in the Writers’ Buildings.
(ii) The further case for the applicant is that he has an acumen for research in history, archaeology and allied subjects and, therefore, he sought permission of the Government for research work on ‘Architecture of Babur’ and he was allowed to conduct research work vide memo dated 17.9.86. However, it is alleged, the Government refused permission to publish a book ‘The Secular Emperor Babur’ vide letter dated 19.5.87 and that book was published by Lok Geet Prakashan, Sirhind 140 406 as co-authored by Mrs. Surinder Kaur (wife of the applicant) and one Shri Tapan Sanyal.
(iii) This is also the case for the applicant that for the publication of ‘The Secular Emperor Babur’ no permission was necessary as the Government had already permitted him research work on ‘Architecture of Babur’ and ‘Biography of Babur for missing period of 1528’ vide letters dated 17.9.86 and 3.9.87. According to the applicant, the publication is of purely literary and of scientific character based on persistent research for which the State Government had accorded the permission.
(iv) It is also the case for the applicant that in July, 1993 he came to know through Press sources that he and his wife were named for King Faisal Award through the Government of India and hence in order to know the truth of the facts he wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary, West Bengal Government, in December, 1993 and to the Central Government through State Government on 5.9.94, but he did not receive any reply. According to him, because of his notings on Anand Margi murder case, the top bosses, who were aligned to certain political parties, had alienated from him, though eminent personalities like Shri B.N. Pande, Ex-Governor of Orissa and a historian of international repute, Shri M.H. Beg, Ex-Chief Justice of India, Shri S.Z. Qasim, Member, Planning Commission, wrote the preface of the first 3 volumes of ‘The Secular Emperor Babur’ in glowing terms.
(v) It is averred that the charge-sheet was without jurisdiction, vague and devoid of material particulars and that the enquiry report is perverse and is based on no evidence and the order passed is in gross violation of the order passed by this Tribunal. It is also averred that the allegation of publication of ‘The Secular Emperor Babur’ cannot be the subject matter of the enquiry as it is the research work. It is also stated that the authorities concerned discarded his version on extraneous considerations.
3. In the counter, the respondents No. 4, 5, 6 & 7 i.e. the State of West Bengal and its officers have traversed the allegations made in the O.A. It is stated that the applicant while working as Director of Evaluation, Monitoring, Manpower and Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Development of Planning Department had sought permission to undertake research on ‘Architecture of Babur’ under the Jadavpur University which was granted to him in terms of the Government of West Bengal’s letter dated 17.9.86. Thereafter, the applicant wanted permission of the Government of West Bengal to publish a book entitled ‘The Secular Emperor Babur’, but the Government did not give him permission after going through the manuscript of the book. It is averred that inspite of the Government of West Bengal’s categorical order not to allow the applicant to be co-author of the book ‘The Secular Emperor Babur’, he got the book published and his name appeared as co-author alongwith Mrs. Surinder Kaur, his wife.
It is further stated that the applicant made representation dated 5.1.94 to the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training saying that he had learnt from a reliable source that the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India had received a proposal from King Faisal Foundation, Saudi Arabia to confer King Faisal Award on him and his wife for their historical research published in four volumes under the title “The Secular Emperor Babur”. It is averred that news items were published on 3.7.93 in the Statesman and on 18th to 24th July, 1993 in Sunday Observer with the photograph of the applicant in this connection and thereafter the applicant made allegations against the Government of West Bengal, though it had denied to have received any such proposal. The applicant made serious allegations against the Government of West Bengal and some political persons in the public meetings organised by some clubs with communal bias and made controversial speeches about the most sensitive and emotionally surcharged issue of Baburi Masjid and Ramjanambhumi.
4. In the two rejoinders, the applicant while reiterating the facts stated in the O.A. averred that no prior permission of the Government was required under proviso (i) of Rule 6(2) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 for publishing the book as it was published through publisher and it was purely literary and scientific in character. It is further stated that the applicant has been participating in various seminars and discussions all over India since 1988 and he has even attended international seminar held at Patna.
It is stated that in the enquiry held against him the Presenting Officer took six years to produce the evidence, but the applicant was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. It is further stated that the applicant has been named as witness in the Baburi Masjit demolition case and his statement under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. was recorded to prove that what is known as Baburi Masjid at Ayodhya was built 16 years before the birth of Babar and it was built by an Eunuch, then Governor of Jaunpur (Husain Shah Sharqi). It is averred that this was not liked by the Central Ministers, who have been chargesheeted in the Baburi Masjid demolition case. It is pleaded that the order dated 22.11.2000 has been issued in colourable exercise of power under the influence of chargesheeted Ministers of the Centre.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. We have also gone through the written submissions filed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant may be summarised as follows :
(i) The chargesheet is vague and is the product of pre-judged opinion and was issued with closed mind and biased attitude.
(ii) The applicant had made a petition on 25.7.94 for setting up 3 Member Board as Inquiring Authority under Rule 8(3) of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 including eminent historians, to understand and appreciate the facts of this complicated case, but the Government rejected his request on 22.8.94 and therefore, the enquiry is vitiated.
(iii) The Enquiry Officer did not allow the applicant to produce defence witnesses and this has seriously prejudiced the case of the applicant. (iv) Prior permission of the Government was not required by an IAS officer to write any book under Rule 6(1) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules as substituted on 13.1.95/4.2.95. (v) The Government's refusal for authoring the book by the applicant is bad in law in view of the Supreme Court decisions. (vi) The applicant has been named as specialist witness before the Allahabad High Court hearing Baburi Masjid/Ram Janambhumi Ayodhya case by Shri S.S. Ray, but the pro-Rss persons do not like the findings of the research work and are behind the conspirary.
(vii) The news item regarding King Faisal Award was first published in Sunday Observer dated 18-24th July, 1993 on the basis of the informed sources in Delhi. However, the applicant was not allowed to examine the witness in his defence. So also Pallab Bhattacharya who wrote in the Statesman dated 5.3.94 and Shri Rana Sengupta who wrote in the Jugantar on 15.12.93 were not called as witnesses in the enquiry.
(viii) Freedom of Speech and expression and to assemble peacefully without arms is the fundamental right of the applicant under Art. 19(1) (a) &(b) of the Constitution and when IAS Officers are allowed to take part in the promotion of Sports Clubs and cultural and recreation activities the applicant could not be charged for addressing the gatherings.
(ix) The applicant had already declared his assets as on 1.1.89, 1.1.90 and 1.1.91 and, therefore, the charge No. 5 could not be level led against him. (x) The final order was not passed within one month of the order dated 8.12.99 passed in O.A. 1321/97 served on the respondents on 16.12.99 and therefore, the entire proceedings stood quashed on 16.2.2000, (xi) The order dated 4.5.2000 was passed at the back of the applicant without making him party and the Tribunal had already become functus officio on 16.3.2000. The extension order dated 4.5.2000 was obtained by the respondents by suppressing the material facts from the Tribunal. (xii) The order dated 4.5.2000 has not been carried out by the Government of West Bengal till date as Rs. 500 costs have not been paid.
7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 contended that the enquiry has been conducted in proper manner and the applicant has been rightly held guilty by the Disciplinary Authority. He pointed out that the applicant was afforded full opportunity to lead evidence in defence.
8. The learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 contended that this Court cannot be justified to sit over the Administrative determination of the Disciplinary Authority and the application should be dismissed.
9. We have given the matter, our thoughtful consideration.
10. The contention of the applicant at points (x), (xi) & (xii) was that in O.A. 1321/ 97, filed by him, which was disposed of on 8.12.99, three months’ time was granted to the respondents to complete the inquiry but the inquiry was not completed within that period and if any extension was granted by the Tribunal for completing the inquiry, it was without jurisdiction, as the Tribunal had become functus-officio on 16.3.2000, when three months’ period from the date of service of the order dated 8.12.99, was over.
11. It is noticed that in the order dated 8.12.99 the Tribunal had directed the respondents to complete the D.A. proceedings within three months from the date of the service. The order was served on the respondents between 16.12.99 to 23.12.99. It is further noticed that the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report on 11.1.2000 and a copy of the same was delivered to the applicant on 16.2.2000. It is also noticed that the final order in the disciplinary proceedings was passed on 22.11.2000.
12. It may be pointed out here that when the inquiry could not be completed within the stipulated period of three months, the respondents filed M.A. 202/2000. The said M.A. was disposed of vide order dated 4.5.2000. It is true that in the order dated 4.5.2000 the presence of the applicant or his Counsel is not recorded. However, it is revealed from the order that applicant’s interest was kept in mind when the said M.A. was heard and disposed of.
13. It is significant to point out that the applicant had filed CPC No. 37/2000, which was disposed of vide order dated 8.6.2000. In the said order it was clearly stated that the applicant was aware of the extension order dated 4.5.2000 granted by the Tribunal. It is evident that the applicant was well aware of the order dated 4.5.2000 at least he had come to know about the order on 8.6.2000 when the contempt petition was disposed of. If the applicant was aggrieved of the order dated 4.5.2000, he should have challenged the same before the appropriate forum. Having not done so, he cannot be permitted contend that the disciplinary proceedings held after 16.3.2000 were nullity.
When the Tribunal had granted extension to the respondents to complete the inquiry vide order dated 4.5.2000, it cannot be accepted that the proceedings taken after 16.3.2000 were without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed.
14. It is stated that the order dated 4.5.2000 has not been carried out by the Government of West Bengal as the cost of Rs. 500 has not been paid to the applicant. If the applicant had not been paid the cost, he should have invited attention of the Court to this fact on earlier dates of hearing. In any case, on account of non-payment of the cost by the Government of West Bengal, the D.A. proceedings do not get vitiated. Steps may be taken by the applicant to recover the cost even now.
15. The contention at point (iii) based on the written submissions is that the Inquiry Officer did not allow the applicant to produce evidence in defence and that has seriously prejudiced the case of the applicant. It is noticed that in the O.A. it was nowhere stated that the applicant was not allowed an opportunity to lead defence evidence. In the O.A. as many as 23 grounds have mentioned for seeking the relief. In none of the 23 grounds it was averred that the applicant was not allowed to lead evidence in defence and that has seriously prejudiced the case for the applicant. During the course of arguments also, the learned Counsel for the applicant did not point out as to on which date the applicant wanted to lead defence evidence or who were the witnesses to whom the applicant wanted to examine and the Inquiry Officer rejected the request of the applicant. Without any foundation whatsoever the applicant has made a new ground in the written submissions. The contention raised in this behalf is not tenable.
16. The contentions at points (i), (ii), (iv), (v) to (ix) relate to the charge-sheet and the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority.
17. It was contended that the charge-sheet is vague and the product of pre-judge opinion and was issued with closed mind. We have gone through the charge-sheet and it cannot be said that it suffers from vagueness. The charge-sheet has been given on the basis of documentary evidence. In the statement of the charges all the particulars were stated. It also cannot be accepted that the charge-sheet was issued with closed mind or biased attitude. When there was material on record before the Disciplinary Authority, there is hardly any scope of contending that the charge-sheet was issued without any material or was issued with closed mind or biased attitude.
18. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant was that when the applicant through his application wanted the inquiry to be conducted by a board, it ought have been conducted by a board of three members.
Rule-8 of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 provides procedure for imposing major penalties. Sub-rule (3) of Rule-8 reads as under:
“(3) Where a Board is appointed at the inquiring authority it shall consist of not less than two senior officers provided that at least one member of such a board shall be an officer of the service to which the member of the service belongs.”
It is evident from the reading of the aforesaid provision that the delinquent cannot claim as a matter of right that the inquiry should be conducted by a board of two or more members. It is in the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority that it may order the inquiry to be conducted by a board consisting of two or more members.
The Disciplinary Authority considered the request made by the applicant on 25.7.91 for setting up three member board but it did not think it proper to accede to the request of the applicant. When the rule did not confer a right on the applicant to get the inquiry conducted by a board, the inquiry conducted by one person cannot be held to be illegal. No ruling, laying down the proposition that when the delinquent claims inquiry by more than one person, the Disciplinary Authority is bound to pass an order in his favour, has been brought to our notice.
19. Before we consider the matter on merits, it is necessary to know the scope of the judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings.
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab and Ors., JT 1999(6) SC 507, has observed that the Court while exercising writ jurisdiction cannot reverse a finding of the inquiring authority on the ground that the evidence, adduced before it, is insufficient. If there is some evidence to reasonably support the conclusion of the enquiring authority, it is not the function of the Court to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent finding. The relevant observations appearing at Para-16 are reproduced hereunder:
“16……the Court while exercising writ jurisdiction will not reverse a finding of the enquiring authority on the ground that the evidence adduced before it is insufficient. If there is some evidence to reasonably support the conclusion of the enquiring authority, it is not the function of the Court to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent finding. The enquiring authority is the sole Judge of the fact so long as there is some legal evidence to substantiate the finding and the adequacy or reliability of the evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the Court in writ proceedings.”
(Emphasis supplied)
So also in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., JT 1995(8) SC 65, it was held that the power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. It was observed that the Disciplinary Authority is the sole Judge of the fact. The relevant observations appearing at Paras 12 & 13 are reproduced hereunder :
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision out a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the finding or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceedings. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the Disciplinary Authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as Appellate Authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere whether the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner in consistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the Disciplinary Authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the Appellate Authority has co-extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the Disciplinary Authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.”
(Emphasis supplied)
In the case of Bank of India and Anr. v. Degala Suryanarayana, JT 1999(4) SC 489, also it was observed that the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority is immune from interference within the limited scope of power of judicial review available to the Court. It was further observed that the Court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental inquiry proceedings excepting in a case of malafides or perversity and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.
In the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. S. Subramaniam, AIR 1996 SC 1232, also it was held that it is the exclusive domain of the Disciplinary Authority to consider the evidence on record and record findings whether the charge has been proved or not and that the technical rules of evidence has no application for the disciplinary proceedings.
While considering the contentions we will keep in mind the aforesaid legal position.
20. The first charge against the applicant was that he got a book titled ‘The Secular Emperor Babur’ published without the previous sanction of the Government and inspite of having the knowledge of refusal of permission by the Government to publish the said book, he got it published deliberately violating the Government order. The defence of the applicant is three fold. Once, the applicant had got permission to do research on the subject ‘Architecture of Baburi Masjid; and the subject matter of the book ‘The Secular Emperor Babur’ was included therein. Two, the publication is literary, artistic and scientific in character. Three, the applicant did not author the book.
It is now admitted position that permission was not granted to the applicant to publish the book titled ‘The Secular Emperor Babur’. The documents placed on record also indicate that the applicant was aware of the refusal of permission by the Government.
The contention that the applicant was allowed to do research on the ‘Architecture of Baburi Masjid’ did not give licence to the applicant to write a book ‘The Secular Emperor Babur’, which is a highly sensitive issue and pending in the Courts in the name Baburi Masjid-Ayodhya dispute. The subject matter of ‘Architecture of Baburi Masjid’ had nothing to do with the secular nature of the Emperor Babur. Babur was or was not secular is not only the seriously debatable question, but also is a delecate issue in the context of Baburi Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute.
The book ‘The Secular Emperor Babur’ has not been found to be a work of literary, artistic and scientific character by the Disciplinary Authority. No material has been brought on record by the applicant to show that the book is of literary, or artistic nature or of scientific character.
In the reply to the charge-sheet, the applicant has not denied in categorical terms that he was not related with the publication of the book ‘The Secular Emperor Babur’. Rather he has justified the publication of the book and has even claimed that it is based on the basis of the research work done by him. Therefore, only on the basis that the name of the applicant was not stated as co-author of the book, it cannot be found that the applicant had not authored the book.
In this connection, the letter of the applicant dated 5.1.94 (Ann. E), on which the Inquiry Authority has based its findings is very relevant. In that letter the applicant had written that the King Faisal Foundation, Saudi Arabia, wanted to confer King Faisal Award on him and his wife Mrs. Surinder Kaur for their work on ‘The Secular Emperor Babur’, which carried the cash prize much more than the Nobel Prize. The said letter clearly indicates that the applicant was never shy of admitting that he had authored the book The Secular Emperor Babur’ alongwith his wife.
As already stated, the Court cannot be justified in interfering in the finding of the fact recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. In the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority has recorded the findings, on the basis of the document Ann. ‘E’, signed by the applicant himself, that the applicant was the co-author of the book. In our opinion, on the basis of the material on record, it has to be held that the Disciplinary Authority was right when it held that the applicant had published the book titled The Secular Emperor Babur’.
21. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant in this regard was that no permission was required by the applicant to write the book ‘The Secular Emperor Babur’ because of Rule-6 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
Rule-6 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 is reproduced hereunder:
“6. Connection with press, radio or other media-
(1) previous sanction of the Government shall not be required when a member of the service, in the bona fide discharge of his duties or otherwise publishes a book or contributes to or participates in a public media: Provided that he shall observe the provisions of Rule 7, and at all times made it clear that the views expressed, are of his own and not those of the Government. (2) No member of the service shall except with the previous sanction of the Government or any other authority empowered by it in this behalf, or except in the bona fide discharged of his duties- (a) publish a book himself or through a publisher or contribute an article to a book or a compilation of article, or (b) participate in a radio broadcast or contribute an article or write a letter to a newspaper or periodical either in his own name or anonymously or pseudonymously or in the name of any other person: Provided that no such sanction shall be required- (i) if such publication is through a publisher and is of a purely literary, artistic or scientific character, or (ii) if such contribution, broadcast or writing is of a purely literary, artistic or scientific character."
A reading of the rule shows that the previous sanction of the Government is not required when a member of Indian Administrative Service publishes a book in the bona fide discharge of his duties. The essential condition is that the book is published in the bona fide discharge of duty. In the instant case, it cannot be said that it was the duty of the applicant as the Director of Evaluation Monitoring and Manpower Department of Development & Planning to write a book on the structure which was not situated in the State of West Bengal. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that no previous sanction by the Government was required by the applicant to write a book on ‘The Secular Emperor Babur’.
It is true that under Article-19 of the Constitution of India, a citizen has a right to freedom of expression but that right is subject to Rule-6 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 in respect of the applicant, who was a member of All India Services. Since it has been held that the publication was not of a purely literary, artistic and scientific character, the applicant could not publish the book without sanction of the Government.
It is stated in the written submissions that the Government’s refusal for authoring the book by the applicant is bad in law in view of the Supreme Court’s decision. No Supreme Court’s decision has been brought to our notice laying down the principle that the Government cannot refuse its employees to author a book.
22. The applicant’s further contention in this regard was that he has been named as a special witness by Shri S.S. Ray before the Allahabad High Court dealing the Baburi Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case. It may be that the applicant was named as a witness but that did not give the applicant a licence to get a book published. So also, that Shri B.N. Pandey, Former Governor of Orissa, made favourable comments on the book and sent appreciation letter to the applicant does not absolve the applicant from the charge of misconduct. As already stated, the scope of judicial review is very limited and this Court cannot sit over as an Appellate Court over the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority on the articles of charge.
23. Articles of charge No. 2 & 4 relate to the news item published in some newspapers regarding the conferment of King Faisal Award by the King Faisal Foundation, Saudi Arabia, and the statement made by the applicant in public meetings/ seminar.
It was alleged under charge No. 2 that the applicant while functioning as Director of Evaluation, Monitoring and Manpower, Department of Development and Planning, Government of West Bengal, communicated and ventilated in the ‘Statesman’ dated 5.3.94 and other newspapers about the receipt of King Faisal Award by him alongwith his wife, Smt. Surinder Kaur, without any basis. Under charge No. 4 it was alleged that the applicant squarely put the blame on the State Government officials and political parties by his letter dated 29.3.94 and other letters and in his address to the public in the meetings, during his interview and discussions with the Press, for standing in the way of receipt of King Faisal Award from the King Faisal Foundation, Saudi Arabia.
The applicant in his reply to the charge-sheet stated that he did not criticise the policy or action of the State Government in any communication to the Press and that he had come to know about the grant of the King Faisal Award in his name and in the name of his wife, Mrs. Surinder Kaur, through a telephonic message on 3.7.93 from Shri Bhaskar Mitra, the then correspondent of ‘Aaj-Kal’ and now working in ‘Jugantar’. He further stated that Shri Bhaskar Mitra had learnt about this news from the sources in Ministry of Home Affairs or Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, and then he conveyed the said news to him on telephone. It was stated that one Shri Shankar Ray, correspondent of ‘Sunday Observer’ also conveyed the said news to him. The further stand of the applicant is that his source of information told him on 10.11.93 that Mr. Janardhan, PA in the Prime Minister’s office, had sent the file to the Chief Minister, West Bengal. It was further stated by the applicant in the reply that his friend Shri Sukhwinder Singh Cheema, who is settled in Canada, while on visiting to Punjab, met one Shri Jitender Prasad, Political Secretary to Prime Minister, and he was informed by Shri Jitender Prasad that a letter for King Faisal Award had been sent to West Bengal Government.
The Enquiry Officer on the basis of the letters written by the applicant himself i.e. Exhibit-3 dated 20.12.93 and dated 5.1.94 (Exhibit-8) has held that the applicant himself created an atmosphere to show that he was going to receive the King Faisal Award. It is significant to point out that in his defence the applicant did not examine any witness, through whom he is said to have received information that he was going to receive the King Faisal Award. Neither he examined his so-called friend who came from Canada and met his another friend nor he examined any person from the Press who carried the news items.
It appears that the newspapers carried the news items that the applicant was selected for the King Faisal Award on the basis of the statement made by the applicant himself. It was natural for the Press persons to have believed the applicant who was a member of Indian Administrative Service. It is evident that there was absolutely no foundation for the news that the applicant was selected for the King Faisal Award.
It is also noticed that in the letter dated 29.3.94 (Ann. A/11), written by the applicant, he made indecent remarks against the Ministers and the IAS Officers, serving and retired. Not only that, he draged the political parties and even the RSS; which is said to be a cultural organisation in the controversy. Keeping in view the material placed before the Enquiry Officer, it cannot be said that there was no evidence before him to hold that the charges No. 2 and 4 were proved against the applicant.
24. Coming to charge No. 5, it may be stated, it related to non-submission of declaration of assets by the applicant in the years 1989, 1990 and 1991. The charge was based solely on the documentary evidence. The applicant failed to produce any evidence to show that he had submitted such declaration of assets in those years.
In the reply of the applicant it was stated that his statements were misplaced by some persons in the Home Department and he could not find copies of the same from his personal file. Non-availability of the assets statements in the department and non-filing of the copies of such statements by the applicant clearly show that he had not submitted such statements containing declaration of assets for three consecutive years. It has, therefore, to be held that the Enquiry Officer rightly held charge No. 5 proved against the applicant.
25. Under charge No. 3 it was alleged that the applicant in the meeting held on 26.1.94 at Killkhana Play Ground Metiabruz organised by Evergreen Sporting Club delivered speeches and defamed BJP, a recognised political party, for its claim of Ram Janambhumi at the Baburi Mosque and thereby incited a particular community. It was further alleged that the applicant in the meeting held on 18.3,94 at the adjasent school premises of Umnat Mosque, Topsia 2nd Lane, delivered highly sensitive speeches on Baburi Masjid–Ram Janambhumi issue. He is also alleged to have said that Shri L.K. Advani had offered him money to stop his research work on the subject.
The Enquiry Officer, on the basis of the oral evidence produced by him, has found the charge proved against the applicant. Five witnesses were examined before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate this charge. In the inquiry one Shri Anis Rehman, Advocate of the Calcutta High Court, was also examined, who stated that the applicant had made allegations against Shri L.K. Advani and he had displayed his book in the meeting.
When oral and documentary evidence were produced before the Enquiry Officer, there is hardly any scope to contend that the charge was not established.
26. We have ourselves gone through the entire material on record. We are satisfied that the Enquiry Officer had held the inquiry by following the procedure prescribed in Rules for such inquiry. The Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer.
27. Keeping in view the grave nature of the charges, it cannot be said that the penalty imposed on the applicant is harsh. No case of interference is made out.
28. Consequently, we find no merit in this O.A. and dismiss it. No order as to costs.