WRIT PETITION NO. 2207 OF 2005

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner from service on the charge of securing a transfer under a fake transfer order.

Quashing of the CAT orders dated 29-09-2004 and 23-02-2005, and the dismissal order dated 16-04-2001, with a prayer for reinstatement and other consequential reliefs.

The petitioner was dismissed from service after disciplinary proceedings that she contended were based on a vague charge sheet, conducted in violation of natural justice, and in non-compliance with Rule 15(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai dismissed Original Application No. 468 of 2002 on 29-09-2004 and Review Petition No. 91 of 2004 on 23-02-2005, upholding the dismissal order.

Whether the charge sheet dated 10 February 1993 was vague and thereby violated principles of natural justice? Whether non-furnishing of the preliminary enquiry report vitiated the disciplinary proceedings? Whether the enquiry was conducted in breach of natural justice due to non-supply of documents, non-summoning of witnesses, and use of adverse material? Whether the delay of nine years in concluding the enquiry rendered it arbitrary and violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution? Whether the disciplinary authority failed to comply with Rule 15(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by not recording tentative reasons for disagreement with the enquiry officer’s findings and not granting an opportunity of hearing? Whether non-referral of the matter to the Central Vigilance Commission and non-consultation with the UPSC vitiated the penalty?

(A) The charge sheet was extremely vague; it only stated that the petitioner ‘managed to get herself transferred’ without specifying any particulars of fabrication or collusion, thereby prejudicing her defence and circumventing Rule 18 of the CCS (CCA) Rules which contemplates joint proceedings. (B) The preliminary enquiry report was never furnished to the petitioner, which violated principles of natural justice as held in Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 117. (C) During the enquiry, the petitioner was denied copies of relevant documents, adverse material was used without opportunity to contest, and the enquiry officer refused to summon material witnesses, resulting in denial of reasonable opportunity under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. (D) The inordinate delay of nine years in concluding the enquiry caused substantial prejudice; the petitioner was forced to drop examination of witnesses and make concessions to expedite the enquiry, thus violating Article 311(2). (E) The enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner, but the disciplinary authority, without recording tentative reasons for disagreement and without granting an opportunity of hearing, concluded that the charge was proved, in breach of Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules and the judgments in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1999 SC 3734 and Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84. (F) Since the charge involved forgery and fabrication, the matter should have been referred to the Central Vigilance Commission for in-depth enquiry; non-consultation with the UPSC also vitiated the penalty. (G) There was no material to show that the petitioner alone was the beneficiary of the transfer order, as it also covered 11 other teachers.

The charge sheet dated 10th February 1993 is extremely vague and such vagueness, has prejudiced the petitioner's defence. The enquiry officer had concluded that the transfer order dated 1st October 1991 was fake without fixing the responsibility upon the petitioner. Upon consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 9th April 2001, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 16th April 2001, dismissed the petitioner from service. Before the disciplinary authority could conclude that the charge against the petitioner stands proved, it was obligatory upon the disciplinary authority to express tentative reasons for disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer and thereafter afford the petitioner reasonable opportunity.

The petitioner was appointed as a Hindi Trained Graduate Teacher at KVS Bangalore on 11-01-1989 and made permanent on 16-04-1992. A transfer order dated 01-10-1991, signed by the Assistant Commissioner (HQ) KVS New Delhi, transferred her and 11 other teachers to different locations, with the petitioner moving from Bangalore to Mumbai. She was relieved from Bangalore on 14-10-1991 and reported at KV Antop Hill, Mumbai on 18-10-1991, but the Principal had not received the transfer order. She was provisionally allowed to join on 24-10-1991 after furnishing an undertaking. Noticing a discrepancy in the subject mentioned, she wrote to KVS HQ for correction but received no response. She was suspended on 13-07-1992 pending enquiry. A charge sheet was issued on 10-02-1993 alleging she managed to get herself transferred under a fake order. She replied on 25-06-1993 denying the charge. Enquiry proceedings continued for about nine years. During this time, her suspension was revoked with a direction to join at Baran, Jodhpur, but it is unclear if she joined. Upon conclusion, the disciplinary authority communicated on 30-03-2001 that the enquiry officer found the transfer order fake without assigning responsibility, yet opined the charge stood proved, and gave her 15 days to represent. She submitted a representation on 09-04-2001, but was dismissed on 16-04-2001. Her appeal was rejected on 11-02-2002. She then filed Original Application No. 468 of 2002 before CAT Mumbai, which was dismissed on 29-09-2004. A review petition was dismissed on 23-02-2005. Aggrieved, she filed the present Writ Petition No. 2207 of 2005 before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and judgment reserved on 19-07-2018, and pronounced on 24-07-2018.

• Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965: Rule 15(2), Rule 18
• Constitution of India: Article 311(2)