Civil Appeal No. 9043 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12019 of 2014). Case: Vijay Shankar Pandey Vs Union of India (UOI). Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 9043 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12019 of 2014) |
| Judges | Jasti Chelameswar and Arjan Kumar Sikri, JJ. |
| Issue | Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850; All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 - Rules 3, 3(1), 7, 8, 8(1), 8(3), 13, 17; All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 - Rules 3(1), 6, 7, 8, 8(1), 8(2), 8(3), 8(15), 8(16), 8(20), 8(24), 10, 17, 20; Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 - Rules 9, 15, ... |
| Judgement Date | September 22, 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Jasti Chelameswar, J.
-
Leave granted.
-
The unsuccessful Petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 87(S/B)/2014 on the file of the High court of Allahabad is the Appellant herein. By the impugned judgment dated 3.4.2014 the said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
-
The Appellant is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service. On 22.7.2011 he was served with a chargesheet consisting of five charges. All the charges are to the effect that the conduct of the Appellant is contrary to Rule-3, 7, 8 and 17 of The All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter called "CONDUCT Rules"). After certain correspondence, (the details of which are not necessary for the present purpose), the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer on 27.2.2012. The Appellant submitted his reply on 5.3.2012. The Appellant challenged the chargesheet before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 623 of 2012 which was eventually dismissed on 29.8.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court but withdrew the same subsequently. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal became final.
-
The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.8.2012 exonerating the Appellant of all the charges. The copy of the said report is not served on him.
-
On 9.9.2012, the meeting of a Selection Committee for considering the cases of officers of the Indian Administrative Service for promotion to the Super Time Scale-II (ASTS-II) was held. The case of the Appellant was considered and the decision was kept in a sealed cover. The Appellant, therefore, submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh on 11.9.2012 requesting that in view of exoneration by the Enquiry Officer, he be promoted to the Super Time Scale-II (ASTS-II). As there was no response to the representation, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal on 26.9.2012 once again in O.A. No. 381 of 2012 with prayer as follows:
a) to issue an order or direction commanding the Respondents to take a final decision on the enquiry report which has already been submitted by the enquiry officer;
b) to issue an order or direction commanding the Respondents open the sealed cover of the recommendations of the selection committee and to forthwith issue promotion orders in respect of the applicant;
c) Such other orders as this Tribunal may deem just, fit and proper be also passed in the interest of justice.
On the same day 26.9.2012, an order (hereinafter referred to as the "IMPUGNED Order") invoking Rule 8(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "DISCIPLINE Rules") came to be passed by the State of U.P. rejecting the Enquiry Report dated 30.8.2012 (referred to supra). The relevant portion of the order reads as under:
-
Enquiry Officer Sri Jagan Mathews sent the enquiry report vide his letter dated 30.08.2012. On examining the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer at government level it was found that the Enquiry Officer had submitted a cursory report without observing the mandate of Rules-8(15), 8(16), 8(20) and 8(24) of All India Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 as criticism has been leveled in the writ petition of the Central Government filed through Sri Vijay Shankar Pandey before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such it is a clear violation of Rule-3(1), Rule-7, Rule-8(1) and Rule-17 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Therefore the Enquiry Officer has failed to properly investigate the facts in the enquiry proceedings.
-
Therefore, in the matter of Sri Vijay Shankar Pandey IAS-1979, the Hon'ble Governor, after rejecting the enquiry report of Enquiry Officer, Sri Jagan Mathews, constitute in his place a 2 member Inquiry Board under Sub-rule (3) of Rule-8 of All India Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969, comprising of Sri Alok Ranjan, Agricultural Production Commissioner, Govt. of U.P. and Sri Anil Kumar Gupta, Infrastructure and Industrial Commissioner, Govt. of U.P. in order to enquire into the charges imposed against him.
-
Challenging the order dated 26.9.2012, the Appellant again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an O.A. No. 395/2012. The earlier O.A. No. 381/2012 was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 16.4.2013 on the ground that it had become infructuous. O.A. No. 395/2012 was also dismissed on 20.12.2013 with certain directions. The later decision was challenged by the Appellant herein in Writ Petition No. 87(S/B) of 2014, in which the order under appeal herein (hereinafter referred to as the Order under APPEAL) came to be passed dismissing the writ petition.
-
The background facts of this case are that a Writ Petition (C) No. 37 of 2010 titled "Julio F. Ribero and Ors. v. Govt. of India including the Appellant herein, came to be filed under the name and style of India Rejuvenation Initiative, a non-Government Organisation (NGO). The said Writ Petition along with another culminated in a judgment of this Court in Ram Jethmalani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 1. All the charges against the Appellant are in connection with the filing of the said Writ Petition on the ground that the conduct of the Petitioner is violative of the various CONDUCT Rules. Charge No. 1 is on account of certain statements made in the said Writ Petition against certain senior officers of the Government of India. The second charge is that the Appellant failed to comply with the requirement of Rule 13 of the CONDUCT Rules whereunder he is obliged to give information to the Respondent within one month of becoming a member of the such organization (NGO). The third and the fourth charges are based on the allegation made in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 37 of 2010. The substance of the charges is that those allegations tantamount to criticism of the action of the Central as well as State Governments and of giving evidence without the previous sanction of the government and, therefore, contravention of Rules 71 and 82 respectively of the CONDUCT Rules. Charge No. 5 is that the Appellant violated Rule 173 of the CONDUCT Rules.
Charge No. 1
Writ Petition No. 37(Civil)/2010 Julio F. Ribero and Ors. v. Govt. of India and Ors. has been filed through India Rejuvenation Initiative, NGO before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein you are also a Petitioner. In the aforementioned writ petition on behalf of the Petitioners (which also included you) an additional affidavit has been filed by Sri Jasbeer Singh wherein para 4 of the allegations made by Sri S.K. Dubey against senior officers of the Enforcement Directorate in his letter to the Hon'ble Prime Minister have been endorsed, which was not expected of you being a member of the All India Services.
This conduct of yours is contrary to Rule-3 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and you have violated the aforesaid rule.
Charge No. 2
Before becoming member of the institution named India Rejuvenation Initiative, you did not inform the government, whereas as per Rule-13 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules-1968 information is to be given within one month of becoming a member.
This conduct of yours is contrary to Rule-3 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules-1968 and you have violated the aforesaid rule.
Charge No. 3
In the writ petition No. 37(Civil)/2010 Julio F. Ribero and Ors. v. Govt. of India and Ors. filed by you before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by way of an additional affidavit filed by the Petitioners (which also included you), senior officers of the Government of India were criticized, whereas the members of the All India Service are prohibited from criticizing, in the media or in the press, the actions of both the Central as well as the State Government, either in their own or in another person's name. as such you violated Rule-7 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules-1968.
This conduct of yours is contrary to Rule-3 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules-1968 and you have violated the aforesaid rule.
Charge No. 4
In Writ Petition No. 37(Civil)/2010 Julio F. Ribero and Ors. v. Govt. of India and Ors. filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by way of an additional affidavit filed by the Petitioners (which also includes), officers of the Enforcement Directorate of Government of India were criticized, whereas as per Rule-8 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules-1968, members of the All India Service are not allowed to depose in any enquiry wherein the Central or the State government may be criticized.
This conduct of yours is contrary to Rule-3 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules-1968 and you have violated the aforesaid rule.
Charge No. 5
In Writ Petition No. 37(Civil)/2010 Julio F. Ribero and Ors. v. Govt. of India and Ors. filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no permission of the State Government was sought for filing the additional affidavit which was filed by the Petitioners (which also includes you), whereas members of the All India Service are not allowed to give any such information without prior permission of either the Central or the State Government which brings disregard to the Central or the State Government. As such you failed to observe Rule-17 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
This kind of your conduct is against Rule-3 of the All India Service (Conduct)...
To continue reading
Request your trial