ORDER
M. Ramachandran, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. By an order in the name of the President dated 21.4.2005, applicant had been dismissed from service. The applicant was holding the position of Director, Cabinet Secretariat during that time. Dismissal was preceded with formalities of charge-sheet as well as enquiry as envisaged under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant has sought relief for reinstatement, pointing out that the dismissal order is unconstitutional and void and is not binding. A copy of the order is Annexure P-1, and applicant has also made available the enquiry report, submitted though not in full. The Enquiry Officer was Gurvinder Singh, Additional Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat (R&AW).
2. The submissions of the Learned Counsel for the applicant was that the allegations as raised could not have been construed as misconduct, which departmentally was to be enquired into inter-alia, suggesting that perhaps criminal proceedings alone might have been initiated. He has also made further submissions that there was nothing brought on record to indicate his guilt and mis-conduct as alleged. It is also highlighted that due opportunity has not been given to him to participate in the enquiry. Issue was pre decided, and the Enquiry Officer might have come to conclusions well before the proceedings were initiated.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, where the contentions raised have been controverted. On the basis of allegations, departmental proceedings have been initiated, and maximum opportunity as envisaged by the Rules had been offered to the applicant. Although he had disassociated himself at intervals, it could have been stated that the proceedings were illegal for the said reasons, as Enquiry Officer was expected to give him fair opportunity to par take in the proceedings. It was the option of the person concerned to utilize the opportunity. He had not cross-examined some of the witnesses, solely guided by his thought process and this could not have been highlighted as reason for upsetting the enquiry. Serious charges were found as established. A decision was taken by the competent authority, thereafter, and interference was not, therefore, warranted.
4. As many as 8 charges have been leveled against the applicant vide Memo. dated 29.1.2004. At this point, it may be necessary to note down the allegations as alleged against him.
(i) The said Shri R.V. Ghuge while posted as Director at Headquarters and while on tour to Gangtok, Sikkim from 8th August, 2003 onwards committed gross misconduct unbecoming of a Government servant by asking the Deputy Commissioner, Special Bureau, Gangtok if he could get a woman to the Government safe-house for his live-in company;
(ii) The said Shri R.V. Ghuge while on tour to Gangtok during the aforesaid period committed gross misconduct unbecoming of a Government servant by repeatedly instructing the safe-house keeper to bring some woman from the market to the safe-house even after being dissuaded by the Deputy Commissioner, Special Bureau, Gangtok;
(iii) That said Shri R.V. Ghuge while on tour to Gangtok committed gross misconduct unbecoming of a Government servant by demanding that the safe-house keeper should bring his own sister to him when he expressed his inability to bring a woman from the market for him. Shri Ghuge further threatened the safe-house keeper hat he would loose his job, if he did not bring a girl for him;
(iv) That said Shri R.V. Ghuge while on tour to Gangtok committed gross misconduct by brining a local prostitute from the bazaar on 11th August, 2003 and by keeper her with him till 14th August, 2003 in a Government safe house which is meant only for operational use and thereby damaging operational security of the organization:
(v) That said Shri R.V. Ghuge while on tour to Gangtok committed gross misconduct by consuming large quantities of alcoholic drinks during his stay at the safe house at Gangtok and was found intoxicated on a number of occasions;
(vi) That said Shri R.V. Ghuge while on tour to Gangtok in August, 2003 committed gave misdemeanour by refusing to comply with the instructions of his superior officer at Headquarters to return to Delhi and by using irreverent/disrespectful expressions such as ‘Hang JS (C);
(vii) That said Shri R.V. Ghuge while on tour to Gangtok in August, 2003 committed gross misconduct (a) by shouting at the local officers and staff of the Special Bureau, Gangtok on 14.8.03 when they sent the woman away from the safe house (b) by challenging one of them viz. Shri S.R.P. Singh, DFO (GD) for a Kung-fu fight and (c) by threatening the local officers and staff that he would commit suicide;
(viii) That said Shri R.V. Ghuge while on tour to Gangtok in August, 2003 committed gross misconduct by unauthorisedly driving the Government vehicle SK 02 6960 on 08.08.03 from Bagdogra/Siliguri to Gangtok all by himself after consuming alcohol and despite protestations by the driver of the said vehicle Shri Ajmer Singh.
According to the Enquiry Officer, there was sufficient evidence to show that charges (i) to (iv), (vi) and (vii) had been fully proved and charges (v) and (viii) had been partly proved.
5. We do not find merit in the proposition that charges leveled against the applicant could not have become the basis for a departmental enquiry and departmental proceedings. The gist of the allegations appear to be that while posted to Gangtok, Sikkim, the officer had behaved in a manner not expected from a civil servant and had conducted himself in a manner bringing dis-repute to the department. The charges indicated that the officer had ‘exhibited grossly immoral conduct, highly unbecoming of a senior Government Officer and also seriously compromised on operational and organizational security of the Special Bureau office’ at Gangtok, Sikkim. Even if it may be the case that some of the charges could have landed one in criminal prosecution that is no reason for the department to keep away from departmental proceedings, taking notice of the background in which the incidents had taken place. His conduct as an officer always could be subjected to surveillance and lapses could be pin pointed as amounting to dereliction of duty.
6. We had been taken through the Enquiry report. No dispute is there that the factual details given by the officer, are not correctly depicted. A charge sheet had been issued duly. By a written statement of defence dated 10.2.2004 the applicant had denied the charges leveled against him. The Enquiry Officer was duly appointed thereafter. The proceedings show that after due notice, a preliminary sitting had been held on March, 2004. When the charges were denied, it had been proposed to go with the enquiry. An opportunity seems to have been given to the officer concerned to engage a defence Assistant which he, however, had declined. Thereafter, an occasion for inspection of original prosecution documents relied upon were conferred. Photocopies of all documents as requested were also directed to be given. Learned Counsel for the applicant, however, had pointed out that report of the preliminary investigation was not given to him. The request made was rejected. Counsel submitted that this resulted in serious consequence to the applicant. But, however, we see that such report, is not relied on by the Enquiry Officer ever. Statements obtained from personnel, however, had been handed over to the applicant. When they presented themselves as witness, opportunity to cross examine them was adequately offered. Some of the witnesses, have been cross-examined as well.
7. The applicant is seen to have made a request to transfer the case to Delhi so that he may be in a position to cross examine the witnesses at Delhi. However, no satisfactory explanation for such request was before the Enquiry Officer. He was, therefore, justified to reject his request as the witnesses listed in the case were posted at Gangtok and the alleged incident had also taken place at Gangtok. We are sure that there was no justification for the request for change of venue. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the officer was reluctant to go to Gangtok because he apprehended danger to his life but such a plea, as pointed out by the respondents, had not been taken or substantiated.
8. We also note that the delinquent has been reluctant to cross examine some of the witnesses by putting a plea that since statements have been submitted by the witnesses concerned, no purpose would have been served by cross examining them, in any event. Thus he had in his discretion denied himself opportunity to cross- examine prosecution witnesses. Resultant position was that the testimonies were un-challenged. There was no attempt made to show that there was malafide/ bias, or presence of any ulterior reason for initiating proceedings against the applicant. Of course, there was a suggestion that the applicant had gone on inspection, to enquire into lapses of security leakage and PW-1 might have been implicated by final result of the enquiry and therefore, he had raised baseless allegation against the applicant. But that does not appear to be convincing, especially since Enquiry Officer had relied on evidence of other persons who were independent and have come to a conclusion on independent evidence. It is also highlighted that PW-1 could not have in any manner influenced other persons, as he had already been transferred to a new Station.
9. When an Enquiry Officer place reliance on oral and documentary evidence and comes to a finding a Court/ Tribunals normally would be reluctant to interfere in such matters, unless there is presence of gross miscarriage of justice. That does not appear to be the case here. Respondents show that by his conduct the applicant himself could have been presumed as having taken a stand that a woman was smuggled in, in security area, and thereby has admitted the charges, at least in part. We need not ourselves examine the matter in greater detail. We do not think there is any justification for us to hold that the findings requires to be up set.
10. If that is the case, disciplinary authority had the discretion to prescribe the punishment. The orders passed sufficiently indicate that the relevant parameters were borne in mind. There is application of mind. In prescribing the punishment. Counsel for applicant had drawn our attention to the decision of
Supreme Court in the case of Ministry of Finance and Anr. v. S.B. Ramesh . It was a case where the allegations were that a married Govt. servant allegedly was living with another woman. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him. The Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal had set aside the order on two grounds, namely, that the conduct as above would not have justified disciplinary action. Tribunal had also found that there was a total dearth of evidence to prove that he had exhibited such a conduct. The procedure required to be followed had not been observed. The challenge had been repelled by the Supreme Court. However, the decision does not at all support in the case of applicant since the Supreme Court had recorded their disapproval about the observations of the Tribunal that the conduct was not actionable.(See page 8 of the judgment). That is what is material here.
11. The applicant may not be able to have any support from the above judgment. In the matter of procedure scrupulous compliance with Rules were there. After the closure of the prosecution witnesses opportunity was given to applicant to produce his evidence. But he had failed to produce any witness. Since the applicant had not examined himself as a witness questions had been put to him as envisaged under Rules 14 (18) of the rules about the circumstances which appeared against him. Opportunity was given to come up with written brief. Thereafter, enquiry officer had come to a conclusion, which we find was fair. In fact we are tempted to comment that the enquiry officer was thorough; procedure was followed to the dot, and very rarely we come across such precise, fact finding reports.
12. In the circumstances, we find there is no requirement or justification to grant the relief prayed for by the applicant in the OA. Consequently, OA stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.