Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 321 (PNJ)

S. K. Khanna v. Union of India

2013-03-08

R.P.Nagrath, Surya Kant

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 22.1.2013 and 14/15.2.2013 (annexures P-1 & P-2, respectively) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, whereby his Original Application No.175-CH-2012 as well as Review Application No.9 of 2013 have been dismissed. 2. The challenge in the Original Application was laid to the charge-sheet dated 20.12.2011 (Annexure A-1) served upon the petitioner by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi. 3. The facts may be noticed briefly. 4. The petitioner is an Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner (since retired). While posted as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I at Kolkata from 1.8.1997 to 6.8.2000 and when he was also the Officer-in-charge of Zonal Training Institute, Kolkata, an FIR was registered against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation on 12.1.2009 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with the Indian Penal Code though, after investigation, a closure report was submitted on 31.3.2010 in the Court of Special Judge, New Delhi. The aforesaid Court while accepting the closure report vide its order dated 12.8.2011, also approved the CBI’s recommendations that the petitioner had misconducted and abused his official position in recommending purchase of books from a Publishing House where his wife was a Director, for which departmental action could be taken. 5. Thereafter, the Central Government issued the impugned charge-sheet dated 20.12.2011, inter-alia, alleging several irregularities to exhibit lack of absolute integrity and devotion to duty etc. 6. The petitioner challenged the above-stated charge-sheet before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, inter-alia, on the grounds that; (i) his Appointing Authority is the Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organization which is an autonomous statutory body and not the Central Government, hence the charge-sheet was issued by an incompetent Authority, and (ii) under the Service Regulations, the Central Government exercises the appellate powers in disciplinary matters, hence, issuance of charge-sheet by the Central Government would deprive the petitioner from his right to appeal under the rules, if so required to be exercised. 7. The Tribunal, however, has turned down both the pleas with prima-facie observations that the Central Government is competent to issue the subject charge-sheet and that the petitioner’s challenge at this stage is pre-mature. 8. 7. The Tribunal, however, has turned down both the pleas with prima-facie observations that the Central Government is competent to issue the subject charge-sheet and that the petitioner’s challenge at this stage is pre-mature. 8. The Review Application pointing out that the Tribunal relied upon un-amended Rule No.9 of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971 to infer that the Central Government is competent to issue the charge-sheet, has also been turned down by the Tribunal while observing as follows:- “.......9. Vide orders dated 21.1.2013, we had held that the Central Government was competent to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose and penalty specified in rule 7 on an employee in terms of rule 8 and 9 of the Employees Provident Fund Staff (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1971. Regarding the issues raised at Sr.No. (ii), (iii) and (iv) of para 2 of the R.A., we had held in para 17 of the order that the applicant was free to raise the ground of non-application of regulations, particularly nonapplication of the FR&SR and the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 to the employees of EPFO before 25.9.2008, in his reply to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority is expected to deal with this matter........” 9. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. 10. We have heard Mr.S.K.Khanna-petitioner in person at some length and gone through the records. 11. In our considered view, the challenge to the charge-sheet on the ground that the Central Government could not serve him with the subject charge-sheet unless it is approved by the Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organization, is a plea which can be effectively taken by the petitioner in his reply to the charge-sheet. Similarly, the petitioner’s plea that the EPF (Officers and Employees conditions of service) Regulations, 2008, cannot be invoked against him as the same have yet not been approved by the Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organization and the legal implications, if any, as a result of alleged non-approval of these Regulations, are mixed questions of facts and law and he shall be well within his right to raise these pleas in his reply to the charge-sheet. It is not in the interest of either of the parties that the Tribunal or this Court should express any final view in relation thereto. It is not in the interest of either of the parties that the Tribunal or this Court should express any final view in relation thereto. Suffice it would be to observe that the petitioner may submit his reply to the subject charge-sheet within a period of one month and take all the legal and factual pleas which shall be considered by the Competent Authority objectively and un-influenced of the observations made by the Tribunal in the order(s) under challenge. 12. With the observations and liberty afore-stated, the writ petition stands dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------