Place: Hyderabad Date : 04.04.2022 From P.Kumar, Manager (Jr.) Southern Printing Group, Survey of India, Uppal Hyderabad-500 039. To ‘The Seeretary, Ministry of Science & Technology, Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi-110 016. (Through proper channel) Respected Sir, Sub: Submission of Judgment Copy on OA No.555/2021 dt. 09.03.2022- Reg. Ref: Order No.$M/23/01/2017 dt.18.01.2021 appointing Presenting Officer to conduct enquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. ‘A kind reference is invited to that, I have filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “That this Hon’ble Tribunal may pleased to call for the records in Order NoSM/23/01/2017 dt.18,01.202lissued by the 1" respondent appointing Presenting Officer ‘and the notice issued by the Inquiry Officer in proceeding No.C-47/2-A(P-Kumar) dt.12.08.2021 to nominate a defence helper for enquiry from the stage of infirmities and to set aside the same declaring it as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of Central Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and direct the respondents to finalise the disciplinary proceedings based on the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer and pass such other order or orders deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” With the observation, the OA is allowed and a Judgment Copy is herewith enclosed for your kind perusal and further necessary action please. ‘Thanking you, a aa (P.KUMAR) Manager (Jt.)(0A 555/202 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH. OA No. 555/2021 HYDERABAD, this the 09" day of March, 2022 Hon’ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member Sudhakar, Admn. Member )/P. Kumar, S/o. A. Perumal, ‘Aged about 45 years, Ove: Manager(Ir), Gr. ‘A’, Southem Printing Group, Survey of India, Uppal, Hyderabad- 500 039, ~-Applicant, (By Advocate : Mr. M C Jacob) ~~ Vs. 1, Union of India represented by the Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, Technology Bhavan, ‘New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi- 110 016. 2. The Surveyor General of India, Hathibarkala Estate, Post Box No.37, Debra Dun, Uttarakhand- 248 001. 3. The Additional Surveyor General, Printing Zone, Survey of India, Uppal, Hyderabad- 500 039. 4. The Director, Southern Printing Group, Survey of India, Uppal, Hyderabad- 500 039. ... Respondents. (By Advocate: Mr. V Vinod Kumar, Sr. PC for CG) Page 1 of 50a 55/2021 ORAL ORDER (As per Hon’ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judi, Member) This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: 2. “That this Hon'ble Tribunal may pleased to call for the records in Order No. SM/23/01/2017 dt.18.01.2021 issued by the I” respondent appointing Presenting Officer and the notice issued by the Inquiry Officer in proceeding No. C-47/2-A(P.Kumar) dt. 12.08.2021 t0 nominate a defence helper for erquiry from the stage Of infirmities and to set aside the same declaring it as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and in violation of the provis‘ons of Central Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and direct the respondents to finalise the disciplinary proceedings based on the inquiry report submited by the Inquiry Officer and ‘pass such other order or orders devm fit end proper in the interest of justice.” The applicant was subjected to departmental enquiry on the following Articles of Charge: “ARTICLE-L ‘That the said Shri P.Kumar, presently working as Manager Junior, the then Assistant Manager while assigned the responsibilities of inspecting the construction of a new House of Shri Ch. Narasaiah, Technical Labourer, Souttem Printing Group, Uppal Hyderabad to issue 2“ instalment of House Buil ling Advance who got sanction of HBA for construction of a new house on Plot No.l41 in Survey No.706/A, Penchayat No.56-32, Gudadanal Cross, New Manappa Layout of Hatti Village, Lignasugur Tq. Rachur District, Karnataka state vide DSPG's letter ‘No. A-720/28-C(HBAYSPG dated 15.07.2013. In comply with the above, the seid Shri P-Kumar, Manager(Jr:) submitted a completion report that he had inspected the under constructing house of Shri Ch, Narasaiah and certified that the house was completed upto plinth level on the above said Plot No., vide his letter No. Nil dated 04.09.2013, ‘On examination the issue in depth, it is found that, the said ‘Shri P. Kumar, Manager(Jr. submitted the Cert ficates in respect of onstruction of house of Shri Ch. Narasaiah, Technical Labourer, Southern Printing Group, Hyderabad was not factually correct but Scemed to facilitate the erring official to draw h:s second instalment of House Building Advance without constructing the houses upto the plinth level as per terms & conditions of HEA. Such behaviour of Shri P. Kumar, Manager(Jr.) is unexpected which raises finger towards his integrity which is a serious lapse on his part towards the ea Page 2 of S(0A 85/2021 Govt. duties assigned to him. Hence, violated the provisions of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964. Thus, by his above act, the said Shri P. Kumar failed to ‘maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a ‘manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant, thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (ii) of the CCS(Conduct) Rutes, 1964, ARTICLE-II ea ‘That the said Shri P.Kumar, the then Assistant Manager was q asked to inspect the construction of a new House of Shri D. Obulesu, Technical Labourer, Southem Printing Group, Hyderabed to issue the 2" instalment of House Building Advance who had got sanetion of HBA for the construction of a new House on Plot in Survey No.702/2 in Devanagaram Villoge, Gaditkota Panchayat, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasham District vide DSPG's letter No. A. 235/28-C(HBAYSPG dated 18.03.2014. In comply with the above instruction, the said Shri P.Kumar, ‘Manager(tr.) has submitted a completion repott in this effeet that he hhad inspected the construction of the house of Shri D. Obulesu, and certified that the house was completed upto the Plinth level on the above said Plot No. 702 vide his letter No. Nil dated 20.03.2014, That the said Shri P.Kumar, Manager(Jr.) submitted the Certificate in respect of Shri D. Obulesu, Technical Labourer, Southern Printing Group, Hyderabad was not factually correct but ‘seemed to facilitate the erring official to draw his second instalment of House Building Advance without constructing the houses upto the plinth level as per terms & conditions of HBA. Such behaviour of Shri P. Kumar, Manager(Jr.) is unexpected but raises finger towards his integrity which isa serious lapse on his part towards the Govt. duties assigned to him. Hence, violated the provisions of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964, Thus, by his above act, the said Shri P. Kumar failed to ‘maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a ‘manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant, thereby violated Rule 3(1)(), (ii) and (ii) of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.” 3. Thereafter, the inquiry commenced and the applicant has duly Participated in the inquiry, It is submitted by the leamed counsel for the applicant that after the inquiry was completed, suddenly, impugned order dt. 12.08.2021(Annexure A-9) has been passed by the respondents as under: “It is to inform you that I have been appointed Inquiry Officer vide Disciplinary Authority Order No. SM/23/01/2017 dated 05.02.2018 to inquire the charges framed against you vide DST Memorandum <= Page 3 of §(0A 555/2021 No,SM/23/01/2017 dated 21.08.2017. You was informed vide letter referred above, that the inquiry of the charges framed against ‘you vide Memorandum quoted above is remitted to the undersigned for conducting the inquiry from the stage of infirmities pointed out by the competent authority.” He has challenged this order before this Tribunal. Initially, after hearing the counsel for the parties, the Tribunal has stayed the inquiry in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of K.R, Deb Vs. Union of India, aad CSHA University & Ors Vs, B.D. Goyal. 4. Notices were issued, Mr. V Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has filed a detailed reply. During the course of the arguments, he has pointed out impugned order dt. 12.08.2021(Annexure A-9) and submitted that it is not a de novo enquiry as alleged by the applicant's counsel. He has read out a line from the said order: “for conducting the inquiry from the stege of infirmities pointed out by the competent authority.” So, the enquiry can be commenced from that stage, according to him. 5. Heard the counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings on record. 6. Learned applicant's counsel has drawn our attention to Letter dt, 16.12.2020(Annexure ~C) of the reply statement where it is stated by The Under Secretary(SMP) as below: “You are, therefore, requested to take immediate action regarding issuing Show cause notice to Presenting Officer, Suggesting the name of another Presenting Officer and remitting the case back to IO with the direction to conduet the inquiry from the stage of infirmities as stated above and inform this Department accordingly.” “0>4 on Ay Fy SA OY ‘order as to costs, f Cony / WIR 22 of, + procedure) Rules Page 5 of S