Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 398 (MP)

RADHESHYAM S/o RAMSURAT CHOUBEY v. UNION OF INDIA

2022-03-09

RAVI MALIMATH, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2022
ORDER VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J. : – The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12-1-2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original Application No. 201/170/2019 filed by petitioner, has been rejected. 2. Petitioner filed an original application challenging the charge-sheet dated 11-9-2018 issued under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Petitioner also challenged the order dated 3-1-2019 regarding appointment of Inquiry Officer. 3. Facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Scientific Officer/C on 1-8-1984 in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai and thereafter he was transferred to Raja Ramanna Centre for Advance Technology (in short ‘RRCAT’), Indore on 24-9-1984. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Scientific Officer/D on 1-8-1989 and at present he is working as Scientific Officer/D in RRCAT. On 11-9-2018 a charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner alleging that during the period from 1-6-2016 to 19-7-2016 the petitioner has misused his internet access provided by RRCAT on his official user ID by lodging fake grievances in the name of several persons including RRCAT employees and their spouses on the Public Grievances Portal of the Government of India and therefore, has failed to maintain integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant. The matter was also referred to the Madhya Pradesh State Cyber Cell for investigation and Cyber Cell has submitted its report on 18-1-2017 and subsequently a case has been registered against the petitioner under sections 66-D and 66-C of Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 27-9-2018 denying the allegations levelled against him. It is submitted that without considering reply to the charge-sheet, respondents have initiated the enquiry proceedings by appointing an Inquiry officer. Petitioner has challenged the impugned charge-sheet on the ground of competence of the issuing authority. It is submitted that petitioner is a Group A Officer and the President of India is the appointing authority of petitioner whereas charge-sheet has been issued by the Secretary to Government of India which is an incompetent authority. Petitioner has challenged the impugned charge-sheet on the ground of competence of the issuing authority. It is submitted that petitioner is a Group A Officer and the President of India is the appointing authority of petitioner whereas charge-sheet has been issued by the Secretary to Government of India which is an incompetent authority. The second ground of challenge is on the ground that in the similar facts and circumstances, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner under sections 66-C and 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2000 wherein charges and witnesses are one and the same and therefore, continuation of departmental enquiry will prejudice the criminal case of the petitioner. 4. In the reply respondents have stated that during the period from 1-6-2016 to 19-6-2016, the petitioner has misused his internet access on his official user ID to lodge fake grievances in the name of several persons including employees of RRCAT and their spouses on the Public Grievances Portal of the Government of India which have the impact of defaming the individual concerned if it goes into the public domain and also embarrasing to the individuals. The respondents have further submitted that the President of India has delegated the powers to the Secretary to impose any of the penalty vide notification dated 29-4-1985. It is further submitted that there is no bar in initiation of simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings on the same set of charges. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of Captain M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another, (1993) 3 SCC 679 and also the judgment passed in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. B. K. Meena and others, (1996) 6 SCC 417 . The respondents have further submitted that enquiry proceedings are in progress and the allegation of misconduct is under investigation. 5. In regard to the first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that charge-sheet has been issued by the incompetent authority, we do not find any merit in view of the notification dated 29-4-1985 (Annx.R/1) filed by the respondents whereby the President has delegated the power to the Secretary to impose any of the penalty in respect of Group A Officers. In regard to the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that facts of both disciplinary and criminal proceedings are more or less the same which will prejudice the petitioner that defence of the petitioner will be closed, we have perused the copy of the charge-sheet and the allegations in criminal case and find that no prejudice would cause to the petitioner in continuation of the departmental proceedings and criminal case simultaneously. 6. In B. K. Meena (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : 14. .....It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e. for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings.... 7. Similarly, in M. Paul Anthony, it has been held as under : 22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are : (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicates questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicates questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on the account of pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” 8. It is clear from the above judgments that departmental proceedings and criminal case can proceed simultaneously subject to the nature of charge in criminal case involving complicated questions of fact and law. In the instant case, the charge against the petitioner is regarding misuse of internet access on his official user ID in lodging fake grievances on the Public Grievances Portal of the Government of India and it has nothing to do with culpability of the offence under sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 9. In view of aforesaid, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. No order as to costs.