Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1614 (DEL)

ANIRUDH RAI v. UNION OF INDIA

2007-08-10

MANMOHAN SARIN, SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

body2007
JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J.-Petitioner by this writ petition seeks quashing of the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 9th May, 1997. The petitioner in the OA had sought quashing of the impugned order of censure dated 2nd September, 1994. He had also sought a direction for his promotion to the grade of Dy. C.I.T. w.e.f. the date, the 1 immediate junior of the applicant/petitioner was so promoted. The Tribunal held that the penalty of censure had been imposed after due inquiry as it was not a case of no evidence, it declined to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different finding. As regards the prayer for promotion, the Tribunal directed that respondents shall pass an appropriate order within 2 months from the date of receipt of the order as to whether the delay that has occasioned continuance of the disciplinary proceedings beyond two years, was at the instance of the petitioner or not. It was further held that in case the respondents decide to open the sealed cover kept by the DPC and the petitioner is found fit for promotion, the petitioner will be eligible to such promotion and all consequential benefits. 2. During the course of arguments, petitioner confined his prayer to the quashing of the order dated 2nd September, 1994 by which the penalty of censure was imposed on the petitioner. 3. Here are the facts: (i) Petitioner joined the Income Tax Department as a direct recruit through the UPSC as Income Tax Officer and was posted to different places from time-to-time. In July, 1986, petitioner was transferred to Hazaribagh. Vide letter dated 8.9.1986, petitioner informed the respondent about the dairy business carried on by his wife pursuant to Rule 15(2) of CCS (Conduct) Rules. (ii) Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 31.10.1990 levelling 5 charges against the petitioner. Petitioner was acquitted of 4 charges and article of charge No. III stood proved by the findings of the inquiry officer. Article of Charge III reads as- "That the said Shri Anirudh Rai while functioning as Income Tax Officer during the period 1982-86 at various places failed to inform his controlling authority that his wife, Smt. Minu Rai was carrying on dairy business since April, 1980. Article of Charge III reads as- "That the said Shri Anirudh Rai while functioning as Income Tax Officer during the period 1982-86 at various places failed to inform his controlling authority that his wife, Smt. Minu Rai was carrying on dairy business since April, 1980. He has violated Rule 15(3) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964." (iii) Petitioner filed O.A. No. 349/91 in Patna Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the issuance of charge memo dated 31.10.1990 and for quashing the same. The said O.A. was disposed of with the orders that the inquiry proceedings be completed within six months. On 30.11.1992, inquiry officer gave his report holding that charges I, II, IV and V were not established while charge III was established on the basis of preponderance of probability. On 2.9.1994, Disciplinary Authority passed an order agreeing with the advice of UPSC that the petitioner is guilty of having violated CCS (Conduct) Rules and imposed the penalty of Censure on the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed on O.A. No. 2002/94 in the Central Administrative Tribunal which passed the impugned order. 4. Petitioner submits that he had voluntarily informed about the dairy business of his wife in 1986. He submitted that after his marriage, the petitioner and his wife lived separately for 8 years between 1978 and 1987 and the petitioner was not aware of the said business started by his wife in 1980 and he came to know of the same in 1986. Petitioner further submitted that that there could not be any charge of violating Rule 15(3) of CCS (Conduct) Rules which reads as "Every Government servant shall report to the Government if any member of his family is engaged in a trade or business or owns or manages an insurance agency or commission agency." Counsel for petitioner urges that the rule only mandates the Government servant to report to the Government about the business of his family members and there is neither any requirement to give prior intimation nor any time limit is stated within which the intimation is to be given. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that immediately after marriage, his wife had been living separately from the petitioner and she had lived separately for 8 years between 1978 and 1986. He stated that she was living with her parents during this period. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that immediately after marriage, his wife had been living separately from the petitioner and she had lived separately for 8 years between 1978 and 1986. He stated that she was living with her parents during this period. He further submitted that petitioners wife started business at her parents house and that was the reason of him not knowing about the dairy business carried on by his wife. Petitioner stated that interaction during this period with his wife was at Darbhanga where her father-in-law was posted. 6. Counsel for petitioner urged that at best the charge against the petitioner could be of giving late intimation. He submitted that the said charge was not as per the charge-sheet. Petitioner also claimed that it was irrational and illogical to put the onus of proving the charge on him that he was not aware of the business activity of his wife till 1986. Learned Counsel of petitioner further submitted that the order of Disciplinary Authority has placed on record the advice of UPSC, and that the advice of UPSC is not to be considered in isolation but with the reasons given by the inquiry officer. Petitioner also contended that in case penalty of censure is imposed, it should not come in the way of the employees case for consideration for promotion to a higher post. 7. Counsel for respondent submitted that the plea taken by the petitioner that he was unaware of the business being run by his wife since 1980 till September, 1986 has been examined by various authorities at different levels and was found to be without merit. The inquiry officer, the UPSC and the Disciplinary Authority examined this issue and a penalty of censure was taken after considering all the evidence on record. It was not permissible for the petitioner to seek review or reappraisal of the said evidence and invited this Court to reach a different finding. 8. Counsel for respondent submitted that petitioners plea that no time limit has been prescribed under CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 for intimating the Competent Authority regarding business activities undertaken by family members of a Government servant is devoid of merit. Respondent submitted that intimation shall be immediate as inherent in the rule otherwise the very purpose of rule shall stand defeated. The scheme of Rule 15 postulates carrying out private trade or employment only with previous sanction. Respondent submitted that intimation shall be immediate as inherent in the rule otherwise the very purpose of rule shall stand defeated. The scheme of Rule 15 postulates carrying out private trade or employment only with previous sanction. It is only certain honorary, charitable or social activities which are excluded from the purview of Sub-section (1) which can be carried out without the previous sanction. The reporting requirement in Sub-section (3) is intended to cover trade or business activity carried out by a family member in respect of which an embargo on the employee is in Sub-section (1). It is thus evident that immediate intimation of the carrying out of such activity is required even though there may not be any embargo on the family member from carrying out any trade or business. 9. Even though we are not required in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, to reappraise or revisit the evidence, Counsel for both the parties had drawn our attention to certain documents on record together with their written submissions. We find that the issue arising for consideration before us relates to the charge proved against the petitioner after recording of evidence and the imposition of penalty of censure. Anirudha Rai got married to Ms. Meenu Rai in 1978 but he had been residing separately almost till 1986. The petitioner had a child in 1981. It is stated that from September, 1982 to June, 1984, the petitioner was on probation in the National Academy at Nagpur. Thereafter, he was posted at Calcutta in July, 1984 to February, 1985, he was then transferred to Muzaffarnagar and finally to Hazaribagh in July, 1986. At these two stations he did not meet his wife. It is contended that the petitioner met his wife only in January, 1987. In our view the above contention is devoid of merit inasmuch as these are facts within the special knowledge of the petitioner and his wife. The burden cannot be shifted on the respondents to prove that the petitioners wife had not informed him of the business. This inference is to be drawn from the attendant facts and circumstances. We may also note that Ms. Meenu Rai is an educated lady, who had done her matriculation. She was said to be under the guidance of her father, Sh. Bachhan Rai. This inference is to be drawn from the attendant facts and circumstances. We may also note that Ms. Meenu Rai is an educated lady, who had done her matriculation. She was said to be under the guidance of her father, Sh. Bachhan Rai. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contentions of the petitioner that he was not aware of the business run by his wife. 10. We further note that the penalty of censure imposed on the petitioner on account of non-supply of information under Rule 15(3) cannot be said to be inappropriate. We further make it clear that the penalty of censure in the present case is not a reflection of moral turpitude on petitioner. In our view, punishment of censure for the charge proved by the Disciplinary Authority meets the ends of justice and is not disproportionate or excessive. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no ground warranting our interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed.