ORDER
Chitra Chopra, Member (A)
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant impugning Charge Memo dated 26.09.2007 (Annexure A-1).
2. Facts leading to filing of this case are as under:
Applicant initially joined as LDC and thereafter got promotion to the post of UDC in May, 1988. While he was posted in the Office of SDM, Preet Vihar, a false and frivolous case was registered vide R.C. 32(A)/2004-DLI dated 30.06.2004 against him. After conducting detailed investigations, the CBI filed the closure report dated 28.07.2005 (Annexure A-2) in Special Court of CBI and the same was not accepted. The said report was duly considered by the disciplinary authority, who found that in view of any material against the applicant, there was no reason to proceed further departmentally. As the Closure Report was not accepted by the Special Court of CBI, the case was proceeded further in the Special Court. After considering the material collected during investigation and other relevant documents submitted by the CBI as well as the complainant, the Special Court, CBI discharged the applicant from all the charges vide order dated 09.05.2007. Thereafter, the applicant submitted the order dated 09.05.2007 to the respondents. Although no action was initiated but the applicant was also not granted promotion when the juniors were considered for promotion to Grade-II DASS, the applicant was neither facing any criminal case nor any departmental proceedings but the respondents deliberately ignored his claim without any justification. He filed a representation before the authorities concerned but finding no response, he filed the OA as well as MA before this Tribunal for directions to the respondents for grant of promotion. It is stated that notice on OA and MA was served upon the respondents on 21.09.2007 and the chargesheet dated 26.09.2007 was issued on the applicant on 27.09.2007 despite the order passed by the Special Court, CBI and the affidavit of the complainant. It has also been mentioned that star witness in the departmental proceedings is Sh. Ramesh Saini and the whole basis of the chargesheet is statement of Sh. Ramesh Saini. Once Sh. Saini has already filed affidavit before the Special Court, CBI stating therein that neither the applicant demanded a bribe nor was interested in accepting the same, it is not open for the disciplinary authority to proceed further against him in departmental proceedings by issuing chargesheet. Thus the action of the respondents in issuing the chargesheet on the basis of same allegations which have already been found false by the Special Court, CBI, is highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the decision of Apex Court in Capt. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines 1990 SCC (3) 679. He also submitted that the Charge Memo dated 26.09.2007 is not maintainable in view of following decisions of this Tribunal, Hon’ble High Court and Apex Court:
Dhavir Verma v. Punjab National Bank 2005(2)AD 237
P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamilnadu
State of M.P. v. Bani Singh
State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal
State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakrishan
K.B. Bhardwaj v. UOI and Ors. 2003 SLJ Vol.1 SC
J. Bhagat v. UOI and Ors. (OA-210/2004)
P.V. Mahashabdey v. DDA
3. By way of relief, applicant has sought direction to quash and set aside the impugned Charge Memo dated 26.09.2007 (Annexure A-1) essentially on the ground that there has been non-application of mind of the Disciplinary Authority in issuance of the Charge Memo.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the pleadings placed on record.
5. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the applicant reiterated the submissions made in the OA and relief upon a decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Than Singh v. U.O.I. and Ors. 2003(3)ATJ 42.
6. Admittedly, the applicant has been discharged by the Special Court, CBI vide its order dated 09.05.2007, which is reproduced as under:
Since, there is no sanction of prosecution of the accused, the court could not take the cognizance of the offence against the accused. Further more, I find that there is no evidence against the accused. The accused is accordingly discharged. The bribe money be returned to the rightful owner.
7. It is settled law that there is no bar to continue criminal proceedings and departmental enquiry proceedings simultaneously. It has been ruled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry 2005(10) SCC 471 that the level of proof required in criminal proceedings being most stringent whereas in departmental proceedings it is the preponderance of probability that is required. Therefore, even discharge by a Criminal Court cannot be ground for non-holding of departmental proceedings for the act of omission or commission. Applicant has stated that he had given representations to the respondents explaining the fact that the criminal case, which was registered against him in 2004, had already ended with discharge on 9.5.2007 and that on the date of DPC or subsequently, nothing was pending against him.
8. While we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order particularly at this initial stage of the proceedings, we feel that interest of justice can be better served if respondents are directed to dispose of the proceedings against the applicant in a time bound manner. Accordingly, we direct respondents to decide the proceedings against the applicant in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Resultantly, OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself.