Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.7420/2011
% Date of Decision: 12.10.2011
Union of India …. Petitioner
Through Mr.Jitender Ratta, Advocate.
Versus
Dr.M.B.Pahari …. Respondent
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
YES
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
NO
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The petitioner, Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
th
Information and Broadcasting, has challenged the order dated 8 April,
2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
New Delhi in O.A No.2234/2008 titled as „Dr.M.B.Pahari v. Union of
India through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting &
Anr.‟ allowing the original application of the respondent and setting
th
aside the order dated 9 September, 2008 imposing the punishment of
25% cut in the monthly pension of the respondent for five years
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 1 of 20
pursuant to the setting aside of the disagreement note of the
Disciplinary Authority. However, the Tribunal granted liberty to the
petitioner to proceed against the respondent from the stage of receipt of
the Enquiry Report; and in case the Disciplinary Authority tentatively
differs from the finding of the Enquiry Report then to communicate the
tentative disagreement to the respondent and after hearing the
respondent, to pass appropriate orders imposing such punishment as
may be deemed appropriate by the petitioner.
2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes between the parties are
that the respondent was posted as DDG at Doordarshan Kendra, New
st
Delhi and retired from service with effect from 31 August, 2004 on
attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of his retirement the
respondent was under suspension. The respondent was suspended by
st th
order dated 31 August, 1999 with effect from 14 September, 1999.
th
Before the respondent superannuated, by order dated 5 February,
2002, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent
under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Articles of Charges
against the respondent were that while functioning as Director/DTG,
Doordarshan Kendra, Delhi during the year 1997-1998, he did not
follow the required norms for the recruitment of stringers as per the
th
provision contained in O.M No.4/4/83-P III dated 4 April, 1983 and he
did not utilize the panel of stringers prepared prior to 1994. The
imputation was also made against the respondent that while availing
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 2 of 20
the services of the stringers, he failed to requisition a proper form
signed by the Director or Chief Producer (News) of the Doordarshan
Kendra containing the details about the location and time of the event
to be covered and failed to minimize the expenditure for hiring the
stringers. It was also alleged that he was instrumental in allotting the
work of royalty based programmes/free lanced programmes to the firms
owned by wife, relatives, friends of Sh.S.K.Mathur, Chief Producer,
DDK, Delhi though these firms were not empanelled as stringers in
terms of the relevant guidelines, and thus the respondent failed to
maintain absolute integrity and exhibited lack of devotion to duty and
acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant.
3. In response to this, the respondent submitted a statement dated
th
19 September, 2002, however, the departmental enquiry was
conducted against him. During the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer allowed
the copies of 21 documents to be supplied to the respondent. The
respondent contended that though the copies of 21 documents were
supposed to be allowed, however, he was given only 16 documents and
the copies of the remaining 5 documents which were not given to him
were relevant for his defense and therefore its non-supply had caused
prejudice to him. Thus, it was alleged that the enquiry was held in
violation of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 3 of 20
th
4. The Enquiry Officer gave his report on 30 July, 2004 which was
forwarded to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, who was the
th
Disciplinary Authority in the matter, on 5 August, 2004 and thereafter
st
on 31 August, 2004 the respondent had superannuated.
5. After the respondent retired, he was given provisional pension by
th
order dated 18 October, 2004. According to the respondent, two years
rd
after his retirement, on 3 October, 2006 he received a memorandum
th
dated 7 September, 2006 signed by the Disciplinary Authority along
with the Enquiry Report and the copy of advice tendered by the CVC
st
dated 21 July, 2006. Along with the memorandum he also received a
disagreement note of the Disciplinary Authority. The respondent made a
representation against the disagreement note and categorically
contended that the disagreement note communicated to him was an
expression of the final opinion by the Disciplinary Authority and was
not at all tentative in nature. It was asserted that consequently, he was
not given a reasonable opportunity to make his representation and the
communication of the Inquiry Report and the Disagreement Note which
expressed the final opinion, asking the respondent to make a
representation was only illusory and was in denial of the principals of
natural justice and in violation of relevant CCS (CCA) Rules.
th
6. The respondent received another intimation dated 8 February,
2007 asking the respondent to submit his representation. The
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 4 of 20
th
respondent, by letter dated 17 February, 2007, intimated the
th
petitioner that he had already submitted his reply on 16 October,
2006 and had also forwarded a copy of the said representation.
th
Thereafter, the respondent received the order dated 9 September,
2008 imposing a penalty of 25% cut in his pension for a period of five
years.
7. The respondent, therefore, challenged the order imposing the
punishment of 25% cut in his pension for five years contenting, inter-
alia, that the Inquiry Officer had not furnished all the copies of the
relevant documents as had been sought by the respondent, which he
was entitled to receive, and he was also not permitted to summon the
relevant documents for his defense, which resulted in the violation of
the principles of natural justice and thus the entire departmental
proceeding was vitiated against the respondent.
8. The respondent categorically asserted that the chargesheet was
th
issued to him on 5 September, 2002 two years after the receipt of the
nd
CVC advice dated 22 September, 2000 and thus the delay was
deliberate in order to give benefit to the main accused Sh.S.K.Mathur,
Chief Producer (Retd.), DDK who had retired in the meantime and
against whom an FIR had also been lodged.
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 5 of 20
9. The respondent also asserted that according to the Enquiry
Officer the single charge against him as stipulated in Article 1 was not
proved, however, contrary to the findings of the Enquiry Officer, a
disagreement note which was not even signed by the concerned
Disciplinary Authority, was sent to him. The disagreement note sent to
him was also not tentative but a final expression of the opinion already
formed by the petitioner. The respondent also raised the plea of
limitation contending that the penalty could not be imposed upon him
as the copy of the Inquiry Report with the disagreement note
communicating the final opinion was issued to him only after two years
th
of the receipt of the Enquiry Report by a memo dated 7 September,
rd
2006 which was received on 3 October, 2006. According to the
respondent, this delay has not been explained by the petitioner, thereby
vitiating the entire enquiry and imposition of punishment of reduction
of 25% of his pension for five years, in the facts and circumstances.
10. Regarding the disagreement note, the respondent specifically
stated that the reason given in the disagreement note was without any
th
locus standi as the Guidelines dated 4 April, 1983 relating to stringers
had ceased to operate in respect of DDK, Delhi as the “News and
Current Affairs” Department was separated from the main Kendra,
DDK, Delhi and was transferred to “DD-News”, a separate office by
order of 1993 issued by the then Director General, Doordarshan. The
said document, according to the respondent was produced before the
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 6 of 20
enquiry officer and was duly proved as Exhibit D3. According to the
respondent, the reasoning of the Disciplinary Authority that though the
DDK, Delhi does not produce any News Bulletin, but since the Kendra
produces Current Affairs Programme, therefore, the respondent was
supposed to follow the guidelines for empanelment and hiring of
stringers as circulated to all DDKs in 1993, was based on pure
conjectures and surmises. It was asserted that no evidence had been
produced in support of this reasoning nor could this reasoning be
substantiated from the 44 documents produced by the petitioner. The
respondent emphasized that after 1993, with the set up of a separate
office “DD News”, DDK, Delhi had not produced any Current Affairs
Programmes and the Director General DD‟s guidelines of 1993 relating
to stringers were not applicable to DDK, Delhi. Regarding the
programmes by three firms namely M/s.Blue Chip Video Creations,
M/s.Pulse-Impulse Communications and M/s.Decent Productions, it
was contended that the programmes were not in the category of Current
Affairs Programme but in the category of Royalty Programmes and that
it was clear from the payments made that DDK, Delhi did not use
stringer services for production of any programmes after 1993 and had
therefore, not paid any amount from the budget sub-headed as „OC-
Nonplan, Payment To Stringers‟. All the payments for the programmes
of the abovementioned three firms were made from the budget headed
as „Royalty‟. Therefore, the services of the stringers were not required for
production of „Royalty‟ and „OC-Nonplan‟ programmes. Regarding the
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 7 of 20
production of Current Affairs Programmes by DDK, Delhi it was
contended that the said fact had not been deposed and was not
supported by any of the eight witnesses SW1 to SW8, rather all the
witnesses had certified that the programmes produced by the three
firms and telecast from DDK, Delhi fell in the category of Current Affairs
Programmes.
11. Referring to the report of the Enquiry Officer, it was contended
that it is apparent that the Article of Charge was not proved against him
and the disagreement note against the Enquiry Report was not tentative
but was a final expression of the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority.
According to the petitioner, the Under Secretary, I & B Ministry to the
Government of India, was neither the authority nor did he have the
jurisdiction to act on behalf of the President. Since no order was passed
by the President to continue the proceedings against the respondent
after his retirement, consequently no penalty as contemplated under
Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 could be imposed on him.
12. The original application was contested by the petitioner
contending, inter-alia, that the respondent had been awarded
punishment under Section 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and
consequently after his superannuation, the grant of provisional pension
to the respondent was in consonance with the relevant provisions and
rules. Regarding the dissenting note, it was contended that it was
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 8 of 20
th
forwarded to the respondent by memorandum dated 7 September,
2006 which was duly signed and so it could not be alleged by the
respondent that the dissenting note had not been signed by anybody.
The petitioner asserted that the Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi
in PE-DAI-1998-A0019 recommended regular departmental action for
major penalty against the respondent and by CVC vide UO
nd
No.99/I&B/002 dated 22 September, 2000 advised the initiation of
regular departmental enquiry for major penalty against the respondent
as well as Sh.S.K.Mathur, Chief Producer (Retd.), DG:DD. The
allegations made by the respondent were refuted and it was reiterated
that the respondent failed to ensure that the services of the stringers
were requisitioned only through a form signed by the Director or Chief
Producer (News) of Doordarshan Kendra containing details about the
location and time of the event to be covered and he failed to minimize
the expenditure of hiring the stringers. It was also alleged that the
respondent was instrumental in allotting work of royalty based
programmes/freelanced programmes to the firms owned by wife,
relatives and friends of Sh.S.K.Mathur, Chief Producer, DDK, Delhi. The
petitioner admitted that on the basis of the testimonies recorded before
the Enquiry Officer and the documents proved, the Enquiry Officer had
th
submitted his report by letter dated 5 August, 2004 holding that the
charge against the respondent was partly proved. A second stage CVC
advice was sought which was tendered by the CVC vide OM
st
No.99/I&B/002 dated 21 July, 2006 to impose a suitable cut in the
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 9 of 20
pension of the respondent which advice and the copy of disagreement
note along with the Enquiry Report and the reasons for the
th
disagreement were communicated to the respondent by memo dated 7
September, 2006.
13. The petitioner categorically pleaded that the respondent did not
th
sent any reply to memo dated 7 September, 2006. According to the
petitioner, the respondent had submitted only his representation dated
th
16 October, 2006 on the Enquiry Report and the CVC second stage
advice. The pleas and contentions raised by the respondent were duly
considered by the Disciplinary Authority and his representation was
rejected and thereafter it was tentatively decided to impose the penalty
of cut in the pension. Subsequently, the matter was referred to the
UPSC for their advice which was rendered by the UPSC letter
th
No.F.3/135/2007-S1 dated 26 May, 2008 holding that all the three
components of charges against the respondent were substantiated and
the UPSC advice to cut 25% of the monthly pension for a period of five
years and thereafter the final order No.C-15013/3/98-Vig (Vol-II) dated
th
9 September, 2008 was passed and communicated to the respondent.
Regarding Mr.S.K.Mathur it was also disclosed that he was placed
th
under suspension by order dated 28 August, 2000, however, he retired
while under suspension and therefore the proceeding for reduction of
his pension was duly initiated and as of now the departmental enquiry
is still pending against him.
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 10 of 20
14. The Tribunal, after considering the pleas and contentions of the
parties and considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, observed that
the Enquiry Report unequivocally reflected that the charge against the
respondent was not fully proved. The Tribunal also considered the
th
disagreement note dated 7 September, 2006 and took note of the
reasons for the disagreement. From the language of the disagreement
note and considering all the facts and circumstances, it was held that
the disagreement note clearly indicates that it was a final expression of
the opinion by the Disciplinary Authority and that the disagreement
note was not tentative and thus the respondent was denied a
reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the
disagreement note. Thus, it was held that the procedure adopted by the
petitioner was not in consonance with Rule 15(2) of the Central Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Relying on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Lav Nigam v. Chairman and MD, ITI
Ltd. and Anr., (2006) 9 SCC 440 it was held that the final expression of
the opinion by the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with some of
the components of the charge is against the mandate of the provision
contained in Rule 15(2) of the Rules of 1965 as also against the
principles of natural justice. Since the disagreement note was not
tentative it was set aside and consequently all further proceedings
th
including the order dated 9 September, 2008 was also set aside.
However, liberty was given to the petitioner to proceed from the stage of
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 11 of 20
receipt of the Enquiry Report and it was clarified that if the Disciplinary
Authority is still of a tentative opinion to disagree with the Enquiry
Report then a tentative disagreement ought to be communicated and
proceeded thereafter in accordance with law. The findings of the
Tribunal as stipulated in the impugned order are as under:-
3. Final expression of opinion by the disciplinary
authority while disagreeing with some components of the
charge as not proved by the enquiry officer, is against the
mandate of the provisions contained in Rule 15(2) of the
Rules of 1965, as also against the principles of natural
justice. The same has to be set aside. Once, disagreement
note is set aside, all further proceedings culminating into
order dated 9.9.2008 have also to be set aside. So ordered.
The disciplinary authority, however, would be at liberty to
proceed against the applicant from the stage of receipt of
enquiry report by it. If the said authority may still be of the
opinion that the report of the enquiry officer does not merit
acceptance in toto and that all components of the charge
against the applicant stood proved, the opinion of the
disciplinary authority would be tentative even though,
supported by reasons and final decision would be arrived at
by the said authority only after taking into consideration
the view-point of the applicant, as he may express on the
note of dissent. The applicant will be restored his full
pension. Surely, if the applicant is again visited with some
penalty, it would always be open for the disciplinary
authority to impose a cut in his pension for whatever period
it may deem appropriate from the future pension of the
applicant.”
15. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal
contending inter-alia that since an opportunity was given to the
respondent to make a representation against the disagreement note, it
necessarily has to be inferred that the disagreement note was tentative
and not final and thus a proper opportunity was given to the
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 12 of 20
respondent. The petitioners also contended that the Tribunal failed to
appreciate that the respondent had nowhere pleaded that prejudice had
th
been caused to him by order dated 9 September, 2008 whereby the
penalty of 25% cut in pension for a period of 5 years was imposed on
the respondent. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal failed to
appreciate that the Disciplinary Authority was in agreement with the
findings of the Enquiry Report.
16. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in
detail and has also perused the copies of the record of the Tribunal
th
produced along with the writ petition. The disagreement note dated 7
September, 2006 submitted by the disciplinary authority is as under:-
“A copy each of the Inquiry Report submitted by the
Inquiring authority and the advice of CVC tendered thereon
vide their O.M No.99/I&B/002 dated 21.07.06 is enclosed.
2. The disciplinary authority (i.e The President) has
decided to disagree with the findings contained in
Inquiring Authority‟s report in respect of ingredient (1) of
the Article of Charge and to agree with the findings of the
IO in respect of the ingredients (2) & (3) of the Article of
Charge.
3. Reasons for disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority
with the findings of inquiry officer in respect of the
ingredient 91) of the Article of Charge are also enclosed.
Dr.M.B.Pahari is hereby given an opportunity to make such
representation or submission as he may wish to make, in
writing to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days from
the date of receipt of this office Memorandum. If no
representation is received from Dr.Pahari, within stipulated
time, it will be presumed that he has no submissions to
make and the case will be processed further as per rules.”
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 13 of 20
17. Perusal of the disagreement note, especially para 2, specifically
and categorically stipulates that the Disciplinary Authority had decided
to disagree with the findings contained in the Enquiry Report in respect
of ingredient 1 of the Article of Charge. In the reasons for disagreement
of the Disciplinary Authority with the findings of Enquiry Authority in
respect of ingredient 1 of the Article of Charge, in para 3 it is
categorically stated that the ingredients of the Articles of Charge had
been found to be proved against Dr.Pahari. Para 3 of the reasons for the
disagreement is as under:-
“3. In view of the above, this ingredient of Article of Charge
has been found to be proved against Dr.Pahari. Thus
there is disagreement in respect of ingredient (1) of Article
of Charge with the findings of inquiring authority.”
18. This is no more res integra that if the inquiry officer gives an
adverse finding, the first stage requires an opportunity to be given to
the charged officer (CO.) to represent to the Disciplinary Authority, even
when an earlier opportunity is granted to the charged officer by the
Inquiry Officer, consequently, even if the finding in favour of the
charged officer is proposed to be overturned by the Disciplinary
Authority, an opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the
inquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its
findings.
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 14 of 20
19. Principal of natural justice demands that the authority which
proposes to decide against the charged officer must give him a hearing.
When the inquiry officer holds the charge to be proved then that report
is to be given to the charged officer who can make a representation
before the Disciplinary Authority takes further action which may be
prejudicial to the charged officer. Where the inquiry report is, however,
in favour of the charged officer and the disciplinary authority proposes
to differ with such conclusion then, before the Disciplinary Authority
finally decides against the charged officer, he must be given an
opportunity of being heard because otherwise it would be condemning
the charged officer unheard in case a final opinion is formed by the
Disciplinary Authority, though an opportunity of being heard is given to
the charged officer before the enquiry officer. In departmental
proceedings what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the
Disciplinary Authority.
20. Consequently, whenever the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with
the Inquiry Authority on any article of charge or a component of article
of charge, then before it records its own finding on such charge or part
of the charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement
and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it
records its findings.
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 15 of 20
21. The requirement of “hearing”, in consonance with the principal of
natural justice, contemplates that before the Disciplinary Authority
finally disagrees with the finding of the Inquiry Authority, it would give
an opportunity of hearing to the charged officer so that he may have an
opportunity to indicate that the finding recorded by the inquiry
authority do not suffer from any error and there was no occasion to
take a different view. However, the Disciplinary Authority, at the same
time, has to communicate to the charged officer “tentative” reason for
disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry authority so that the
charged officer may indicate that the reasons on the basis of which the
Disciplinary Authority proposes to disagree with the findings recorded
by the Inquiry Authority are not germane and the finding of `not guilty‟
or `not proved‟ already recorded by the Inquiry Authority shall not be
liable to be interfered with. In Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr., AIR 1999 SC 3734, the Supreme Court had held
that even though the show cause notice was given to the charged
officers along with reasons on the basis of which the Disciplinary
Authority had disagreed with the findings of the inquiry authority but
the disciplinary authority, instead of forming a tentative opinion, had
come to a final conclusion that the charge against the charged officer
was established. The Supreme Court had held so because the
disciplinary committee had held while communicating the disagreement
note that the charge against the charged officer had been proved and it
was not communicated to the charged officer that the disciplinary
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 16 of 20
committee had come only to a “tentative” decision. In the facts and
circumstances, it was held that a reasonable opportunity of hearing was
not given to the charged officer before taking a final decision in the
matter relating the findings on the charges framed against the charged
officer. It was also held that the principles of natural justice as laid
down by a three judges bench in Punjab National bank and ors. Vs.
Kunj Bihari Misra, Manu/SC/0531/1998, were violated.
22. Similarly, if one peruses the disagreement note, relevant portion
of which is also reproduced hereinabove, which stipulates that the
„article of charge has been found to be proved‟ against the respondent,
Dr. Pahari. Merely not using the word “tentative‟ will not make the
disagreement note final and similarly using the word “tentative” will
also not make the opinion in the disagreement note as „tentative‟, as
whether the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the
finding of the inquiry officer is tentative or not depends on the entirety
of the disagreement note and the tenor of the language. Perusal of the
disagreement note in the instant case, unequivocally, however, reflects
that the Disciplinary Authority had formed an opinion that the article of
charge had been found to be proved against Dr. Pahari, respondent,
and it was not a tentative opinion formed by the Disciplinary Authority.
In the circumstances, merely asking the respondent to make
representation against the disagreement note will not make the opinion
formed by the Disciplinary Authority as “tentative” and to that extent
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 17 of 20
this Court is in agreement with the findings of the Tribunal that the
disagreement note is not tentative and the charge against the
respondent had been held to be established before putting the
respondent to notice with reasons for disagreement by the Disciplinary
Authority.
23. The Tribunal has relied on Rule 15(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1960
and the decision of the Supreme Court in Lav Nigam Vs. Chairman and
MD ITI Limited and Anr. (2006) 9 SCC 440 holding as under:-
“10. The conclusion of the High Court was contrary to the
consistent view taken by this Court that in case the
disciplinary authority differs with the view taken by the
inquiry officer, he is bound to given notice setting out his
tentative conclusions to the appellant. It is only after
hearing the appellant that the disciplinary authority would
at all arrive at a final finding of guilt….”
24. The Tribunal has also held that the final expression of opinion by
the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with some components of
the charge as not proved by the inquiry officer, is against the mandate
of the provisions contained in Rule 15(2) of the Rules of 1965, as also
against the principles of natural justice and thus, set aside the
th
disagreement note and consequently, the punishment order dated 9
September, 2008 was passed.
25. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and
circumstances, is unable to demonstrate that the disagreement note
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 18 of 20
was tentative and not a final expression of the opinion regarding the
guilt of the respondent. In para-3 of the disagreement note, it has been
categorically recorded that the ingredients of article of charge has been
found to be proved against Dr. Pahari, taking it from any point.
26. This court is not satisfied with the plea raised by the petitioner
that since the respondent was given an opportunity to represent against
the disagreement note, it has to be construed as tentative and not final.
This plea is to be rejected for the reasons as detailed hereinabove and it
cannot be held that the finding of the Tribunal suffers from any
illegality, irregularity or any perversity.
27. In any case, the Tribunal has set aside the disagreement note,
which was a final expression of the guilt of the respondent and the
penalty imposed pursuant thereto. The Tribunal has, however, given
the liberty to the petitioner to proceed against the respondent from the
stage of receipt of inquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority and to
form a tentative opinion, if any, that the report of the inquiry officer
does not merit acceptance and that all the components of charge
against the respondent has been tentatively made out and in that case
to convey a tentative disagreement note to the respondent and after
giving him an opportunity to make a representation and considering the
same to pass an appropriate order.
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 19 of 20
28. In totality of the facts and circumstances and for the foregoing
reasons, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal
th
dated 8 April, 2010, passed in the original application bearing OA No.
2234/2008 titled as Dr. M.B. Pahari Vs. UOI and Anr. The writ petition
is without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed. All the pending
applications are also disposed of. Considering the facts and
circumstances, no cost is imposed on the petitioner.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
OCTOBER 12, 2011.
„k‟
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 20 of 20
+ WP(C) No.7420/2011
% Date of Decision: 12.10.2011
Union of India …. Petitioner
Through Mr.Jitender Ratta, Advocate.
Versus
Dr.M.B.Pahari …. Respondent
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
YES
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
NO
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The petitioner, Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
th
Information and Broadcasting, has challenged the order dated 8 April,
2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
New Delhi in O.A No.2234/2008 titled as „Dr.M.B.Pahari v. Union of
India through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting &
Anr.‟ allowing the original application of the respondent and setting
th
aside the order dated 9 September, 2008 imposing the punishment of
25% cut in the monthly pension of the respondent for five years
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 1 of 20
pursuant to the setting aside of the disagreement note of the
Disciplinary Authority. However, the Tribunal granted liberty to the
petitioner to proceed against the respondent from the stage of receipt of
the Enquiry Report; and in case the Disciplinary Authority tentatively
differs from the finding of the Enquiry Report then to communicate the
tentative disagreement to the respondent and after hearing the
respondent, to pass appropriate orders imposing such punishment as
may be deemed appropriate by the petitioner.
2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes between the parties are
that the respondent was posted as DDG at Doordarshan Kendra, New
st
Delhi and retired from service with effect from 31 August, 2004 on
attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of his retirement the
respondent was under suspension. The respondent was suspended by
st th
order dated 31 August, 1999 with effect from 14 September, 1999.
th
Before the respondent superannuated, by order dated 5 February,
2002, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent
under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Articles of Charges
against the respondent were that while functioning as Director/DTG,
Doordarshan Kendra, Delhi during the year 1997-1998, he did not
follow the required norms for the recruitment of stringers as per the
th
provision contained in O.M No.4/4/83-P III dated 4 April, 1983 and he
did not utilize the panel of stringers prepared prior to 1994. The
imputation was also made against the respondent that while availing
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 2 of 20
the services of the stringers, he failed to requisition a proper form
signed by the Director or Chief Producer (News) of the Doordarshan
Kendra containing the details about the location and time of the event
to be covered and failed to minimize the expenditure for hiring the
stringers. It was also alleged that he was instrumental in allotting the
work of royalty based programmes/free lanced programmes to the firms
owned by wife, relatives, friends of Sh.S.K.Mathur, Chief Producer,
DDK, Delhi though these firms were not empanelled as stringers in
terms of the relevant guidelines, and thus the respondent failed to
maintain absolute integrity and exhibited lack of devotion to duty and
acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant.
3. In response to this, the respondent submitted a statement dated
th
19 September, 2002, however, the departmental enquiry was
conducted against him. During the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer allowed
the copies of 21 documents to be supplied to the respondent. The
respondent contended that though the copies of 21 documents were
supposed to be allowed, however, he was given only 16 documents and
the copies of the remaining 5 documents which were not given to him
were relevant for his defense and therefore its non-supply had caused
prejudice to him. Thus, it was alleged that the enquiry was held in
violation of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 3 of 20
th
4. The Enquiry Officer gave his report on 30 July, 2004 which was
forwarded to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, who was the
th
Disciplinary Authority in the matter, on 5 August, 2004 and thereafter
st
on 31 August, 2004 the respondent had superannuated.
5. After the respondent retired, he was given provisional pension by
th
order dated 18 October, 2004. According to the respondent, two years
rd
after his retirement, on 3 October, 2006 he received a memorandum
th
dated 7 September, 2006 signed by the Disciplinary Authority along
with the Enquiry Report and the copy of advice tendered by the CVC
st
dated 21 July, 2006. Along with the memorandum he also received a
disagreement note of the Disciplinary Authority. The respondent made a
representation against the disagreement note and categorically
contended that the disagreement note communicated to him was an
expression of the final opinion by the Disciplinary Authority and was
not at all tentative in nature. It was asserted that consequently, he was
not given a reasonable opportunity to make his representation and the
communication of the Inquiry Report and the Disagreement Note which
expressed the final opinion, asking the respondent to make a
representation was only illusory and was in denial of the principals of
natural justice and in violation of relevant CCS (CCA) Rules.
th
6. The respondent received another intimation dated 8 February,
2007 asking the respondent to submit his representation. The
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 4 of 20
th
respondent, by letter dated 17 February, 2007, intimated the
th
petitioner that he had already submitted his reply on 16 October,
2006 and had also forwarded a copy of the said representation.
th
Thereafter, the respondent received the order dated 9 September,
2008 imposing a penalty of 25% cut in his pension for a period of five
years.
7. The respondent, therefore, challenged the order imposing the
punishment of 25% cut in his pension for five years contenting, inter-
alia, that the Inquiry Officer had not furnished all the copies of the
relevant documents as had been sought by the respondent, which he
was entitled to receive, and he was also not permitted to summon the
relevant documents for his defense, which resulted in the violation of
the principles of natural justice and thus the entire departmental
proceeding was vitiated against the respondent.
8. The respondent categorically asserted that the chargesheet was
th
issued to him on 5 September, 2002 two years after the receipt of the
nd
CVC advice dated 22 September, 2000 and thus the delay was
deliberate in order to give benefit to the main accused Sh.S.K.Mathur,
Chief Producer (Retd.), DDK who had retired in the meantime and
against whom an FIR had also been lodged.
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 5 of 20
9. The respondent also asserted that according to the Enquiry
Officer the single charge against him as stipulated in Article 1 was not
proved, however, contrary to the findings of the Enquiry Officer, a
disagreement note which was not even signed by the concerned
Disciplinary Authority, was sent to him. The disagreement note sent to
him was also not tentative but a final expression of the opinion already
formed by the petitioner. The respondent also raised the plea of
limitation contending that the penalty could not be imposed upon him
as the copy of the Inquiry Report with the disagreement note
communicating the final opinion was issued to him only after two years
th
of the receipt of the Enquiry Report by a memo dated 7 September,
rd
2006 which was received on 3 October, 2006. According to the
respondent, this delay has not been explained by the petitioner, thereby
vitiating the entire enquiry and imposition of punishment of reduction
of 25% of his pension for five years, in the facts and circumstances.
10. Regarding the disagreement note, the respondent specifically
stated that the reason given in the disagreement note was without any
th
locus standi as the Guidelines dated 4 April, 1983 relating to stringers
had ceased to operate in respect of DDK, Delhi as the “News and
Current Affairs” Department was separated from the main Kendra,
DDK, Delhi and was transferred to “DD-News”, a separate office by
order of 1993 issued by the then Director General, Doordarshan. The
said document, according to the respondent was produced before the
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 6 of 20
enquiry officer and was duly proved as Exhibit D3. According to the
respondent, the reasoning of the Disciplinary Authority that though the
DDK, Delhi does not produce any News Bulletin, but since the Kendra
produces Current Affairs Programme, therefore, the respondent was
supposed to follow the guidelines for empanelment and hiring of
stringers as circulated to all DDKs in 1993, was based on pure
conjectures and surmises. It was asserted that no evidence had been
produced in support of this reasoning nor could this reasoning be
substantiated from the 44 documents produced by the petitioner. The
respondent emphasized that after 1993, with the set up of a separate
office “DD News”, DDK, Delhi had not produced any Current Affairs
Programmes and the Director General DD‟s guidelines of 1993 relating
to stringers were not applicable to DDK, Delhi. Regarding the
programmes by three firms namely M/s.Blue Chip Video Creations,
M/s.Pulse-Impulse Communications and M/s.Decent Productions, it
was contended that the programmes were not in the category of Current
Affairs Programme but in the category of Royalty Programmes and that
it was clear from the payments made that DDK, Delhi did not use
stringer services for production of any programmes after 1993 and had
therefore, not paid any amount from the budget sub-headed as „OC-
Nonplan, Payment To Stringers‟. All the payments for the programmes
of the abovementioned three firms were made from the budget headed
as „Royalty‟. Therefore, the services of the stringers were not required for
production of „Royalty‟ and „OC-Nonplan‟ programmes. Regarding the
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 7 of 20
production of Current Affairs Programmes by DDK, Delhi it was
contended that the said fact had not been deposed and was not
supported by any of the eight witnesses SW1 to SW8, rather all the
witnesses had certified that the programmes produced by the three
firms and telecast from DDK, Delhi fell in the category of Current Affairs
Programmes.
11. Referring to the report of the Enquiry Officer, it was contended
that it is apparent that the Article of Charge was not proved against him
and the disagreement note against the Enquiry Report was not tentative
but was a final expression of the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority.
According to the petitioner, the Under Secretary, I & B Ministry to the
Government of India, was neither the authority nor did he have the
jurisdiction to act on behalf of the President. Since no order was passed
by the President to continue the proceedings against the respondent
after his retirement, consequently no penalty as contemplated under
Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 could be imposed on him.
12. The original application was contested by the petitioner
contending, inter-alia, that the respondent had been awarded
punishment under Section 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and
consequently after his superannuation, the grant of provisional pension
to the respondent was in consonance with the relevant provisions and
rules. Regarding the dissenting note, it was contended that it was
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 8 of 20
th
forwarded to the respondent by memorandum dated 7 September,
2006 which was duly signed and so it could not be alleged by the
respondent that the dissenting note had not been signed by anybody.
The petitioner asserted that the Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi
in PE-DAI-1998-A0019 recommended regular departmental action for
major penalty against the respondent and by CVC vide UO
nd
No.99/I&B/002 dated 22 September, 2000 advised the initiation of
regular departmental enquiry for major penalty against the respondent
as well as Sh.S.K.Mathur, Chief Producer (Retd.), DG:DD. The
allegations made by the respondent were refuted and it was reiterated
that the respondent failed to ensure that the services of the stringers
were requisitioned only through a form signed by the Director or Chief
Producer (News) of Doordarshan Kendra containing details about the
location and time of the event to be covered and he failed to minimize
the expenditure of hiring the stringers. It was also alleged that the
respondent was instrumental in allotting work of royalty based
programmes/freelanced programmes to the firms owned by wife,
relatives and friends of Sh.S.K.Mathur, Chief Producer, DDK, Delhi. The
petitioner admitted that on the basis of the testimonies recorded before
the Enquiry Officer and the documents proved, the Enquiry Officer had
th
submitted his report by letter dated 5 August, 2004 holding that the
charge against the respondent was partly proved. A second stage CVC
advice was sought which was tendered by the CVC vide OM
st
No.99/I&B/002 dated 21 July, 2006 to impose a suitable cut in the
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 9 of 20
pension of the respondent which advice and the copy of disagreement
note along with the Enquiry Report and the reasons for the
th
disagreement were communicated to the respondent by memo dated 7
September, 2006.
13. The petitioner categorically pleaded that the respondent did not
th
sent any reply to memo dated 7 September, 2006. According to the
petitioner, the respondent had submitted only his representation dated
th
16 October, 2006 on the Enquiry Report and the CVC second stage
advice. The pleas and contentions raised by the respondent were duly
considered by the Disciplinary Authority and his representation was
rejected and thereafter it was tentatively decided to impose the penalty
of cut in the pension. Subsequently, the matter was referred to the
UPSC for their advice which was rendered by the UPSC letter
th
No.F.3/135/2007-S1 dated 26 May, 2008 holding that all the three
components of charges against the respondent were substantiated and
the UPSC advice to cut 25% of the monthly pension for a period of five
years and thereafter the final order No.C-15013/3/98-Vig (Vol-II) dated
th
9 September, 2008 was passed and communicated to the respondent.
Regarding Mr.S.K.Mathur it was also disclosed that he was placed
th
under suspension by order dated 28 August, 2000, however, he retired
while under suspension and therefore the proceeding for reduction of
his pension was duly initiated and as of now the departmental enquiry
is still pending against him.
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 10 of 20
14. The Tribunal, after considering the pleas and contentions of the
parties and considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, observed that
the Enquiry Report unequivocally reflected that the charge against the
respondent was not fully proved. The Tribunal also considered the
th
disagreement note dated 7 September, 2006 and took note of the
reasons for the disagreement. From the language of the disagreement
note and considering all the facts and circumstances, it was held that
the disagreement note clearly indicates that it was a final expression of
the opinion by the Disciplinary Authority and that the disagreement
note was not tentative and thus the respondent was denied a
reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the
disagreement note. Thus, it was held that the procedure adopted by the
petitioner was not in consonance with Rule 15(2) of the Central Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Relying on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Lav Nigam v. Chairman and MD, ITI
Ltd. and Anr., (2006) 9 SCC 440 it was held that the final expression of
the opinion by the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with some of
the components of the charge is against the mandate of the provision
contained in Rule 15(2) of the Rules of 1965 as also against the
principles of natural justice. Since the disagreement note was not
tentative it was set aside and consequently all further proceedings
th
including the order dated 9 September, 2008 was also set aside.
However, liberty was given to the petitioner to proceed from the stage of
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 11 of 20
receipt of the Enquiry Report and it was clarified that if the Disciplinary
Authority is still of a tentative opinion to disagree with the Enquiry
Report then a tentative disagreement ought to be communicated and
proceeded thereafter in accordance with law. The findings of the
Tribunal as stipulated in the impugned order are as under:-
3. Final expression of opinion by the disciplinary
authority while disagreeing with some components of the
charge as not proved by the enquiry officer, is against the
mandate of the provisions contained in Rule 15(2) of the
Rules of 1965, as also against the principles of natural
justice. The same has to be set aside. Once, disagreement
note is set aside, all further proceedings culminating into
order dated 9.9.2008 have also to be set aside. So ordered.
The disciplinary authority, however, would be at liberty to
proceed against the applicant from the stage of receipt of
enquiry report by it. If the said authority may still be of the
opinion that the report of the enquiry officer does not merit
acceptance in toto and that all components of the charge
against the applicant stood proved, the opinion of the
disciplinary authority would be tentative even though,
supported by reasons and final decision would be arrived at
by the said authority only after taking into consideration
the view-point of the applicant, as he may express on the
note of dissent. The applicant will be restored his full
pension. Surely, if the applicant is again visited with some
penalty, it would always be open for the disciplinary
authority to impose a cut in his pension for whatever period
it may deem appropriate from the future pension of the
applicant.”
15. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal
contending inter-alia that since an opportunity was given to the
respondent to make a representation against the disagreement note, it
necessarily has to be inferred that the disagreement note was tentative
and not final and thus a proper opportunity was given to the
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 12 of 20
respondent. The petitioners also contended that the Tribunal failed to
appreciate that the respondent had nowhere pleaded that prejudice had
th
been caused to him by order dated 9 September, 2008 whereby the
penalty of 25% cut in pension for a period of 5 years was imposed on
the respondent. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal failed to
appreciate that the Disciplinary Authority was in agreement with the
findings of the Enquiry Report.
16. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in
detail and has also perused the copies of the record of the Tribunal
th
produced along with the writ petition. The disagreement note dated 7
September, 2006 submitted by the disciplinary authority is as under:-
“A copy each of the Inquiry Report submitted by the
Inquiring authority and the advice of CVC tendered thereon
vide their O.M No.99/I&B/002 dated 21.07.06 is enclosed.
2. The disciplinary authority (i.e The President) has
decided to disagree with the findings contained in
Inquiring Authority‟s report in respect of ingredient (1) of
the Article of Charge and to agree with the findings of the
IO in respect of the ingredients (2) & (3) of the Article of
Charge.
3. Reasons for disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority
with the findings of inquiry officer in respect of the
ingredient 91) of the Article of Charge are also enclosed.
Dr.M.B.Pahari is hereby given an opportunity to make such
representation or submission as he may wish to make, in
writing to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days from
the date of receipt of this office Memorandum. If no
representation is received from Dr.Pahari, within stipulated
time, it will be presumed that he has no submissions to
make and the case will be processed further as per rules.”
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 13 of 20
17. Perusal of the disagreement note, especially para 2, specifically
and categorically stipulates that the Disciplinary Authority had decided
to disagree with the findings contained in the Enquiry Report in respect
of ingredient 1 of the Article of Charge. In the reasons for disagreement
of the Disciplinary Authority with the findings of Enquiry Authority in
respect of ingredient 1 of the Article of Charge, in para 3 it is
categorically stated that the ingredients of the Articles of Charge had
been found to be proved against Dr.Pahari. Para 3 of the reasons for the
disagreement is as under:-
“3. In view of the above, this ingredient of Article of Charge
has been found to be proved against Dr.Pahari. Thus
there is disagreement in respect of ingredient (1) of Article
of Charge with the findings of inquiring authority.”
18. This is no more res integra that if the inquiry officer gives an
adverse finding, the first stage requires an opportunity to be given to
the charged officer (CO.) to represent to the Disciplinary Authority, even
when an earlier opportunity is granted to the charged officer by the
Inquiry Officer, consequently, even if the finding in favour of the
charged officer is proposed to be overturned by the Disciplinary
Authority, an opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the
inquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its
findings.
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 14 of 20
19. Principal of natural justice demands that the authority which
proposes to decide against the charged officer must give him a hearing.
When the inquiry officer holds the charge to be proved then that report
is to be given to the charged officer who can make a representation
before the Disciplinary Authority takes further action which may be
prejudicial to the charged officer. Where the inquiry report is, however,
in favour of the charged officer and the disciplinary authority proposes
to differ with such conclusion then, before the Disciplinary Authority
finally decides against the charged officer, he must be given an
opportunity of being heard because otherwise it would be condemning
the charged officer unheard in case a final opinion is formed by the
Disciplinary Authority, though an opportunity of being heard is given to
the charged officer before the enquiry officer. In departmental
proceedings what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the
Disciplinary Authority.
20. Consequently, whenever the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with
the Inquiry Authority on any article of charge or a component of article
of charge, then before it records its own finding on such charge or part
of the charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement
and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it
records its findings.
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 15 of 20
21. The requirement of “hearing”, in consonance with the principal of
natural justice, contemplates that before the Disciplinary Authority
finally disagrees with the finding of the Inquiry Authority, it would give
an opportunity of hearing to the charged officer so that he may have an
opportunity to indicate that the finding recorded by the inquiry
authority do not suffer from any error and there was no occasion to
take a different view. However, the Disciplinary Authority, at the same
time, has to communicate to the charged officer “tentative” reason for
disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry authority so that the
charged officer may indicate that the reasons on the basis of which the
Disciplinary Authority proposes to disagree with the findings recorded
by the Inquiry Authority are not germane and the finding of `not guilty‟
or `not proved‟ already recorded by the Inquiry Authority shall not be
liable to be interfered with. In Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr., AIR 1999 SC 3734, the Supreme Court had held
that even though the show cause notice was given to the charged
officers along with reasons on the basis of which the Disciplinary
Authority had disagreed with the findings of the inquiry authority but
the disciplinary authority, instead of forming a tentative opinion, had
come to a final conclusion that the charge against the charged officer
was established. The Supreme Court had held so because the
disciplinary committee had held while communicating the disagreement
note that the charge against the charged officer had been proved and it
was not communicated to the charged officer that the disciplinary
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 16 of 20
committee had come only to a “tentative” decision. In the facts and
circumstances, it was held that a reasonable opportunity of hearing was
not given to the charged officer before taking a final decision in the
matter relating the findings on the charges framed against the charged
officer. It was also held that the principles of natural justice as laid
down by a three judges bench in Punjab National bank and ors. Vs.
Kunj Bihari Misra, Manu/SC/0531/1998, were violated.
22. Similarly, if one peruses the disagreement note, relevant portion
of which is also reproduced hereinabove, which stipulates that the
„article of charge has been found to be proved‟ against the respondent,
Dr. Pahari. Merely not using the word “tentative‟ will not make the
disagreement note final and similarly using the word “tentative” will
also not make the opinion in the disagreement note as „tentative‟, as
whether the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the
finding of the inquiry officer is tentative or not depends on the entirety
of the disagreement note and the tenor of the language. Perusal of the
disagreement note in the instant case, unequivocally, however, reflects
that the Disciplinary Authority had formed an opinion that the article of
charge had been found to be proved against Dr. Pahari, respondent,
and it was not a tentative opinion formed by the Disciplinary Authority.
In the circumstances, merely asking the respondent to make
representation against the disagreement note will not make the opinion
formed by the Disciplinary Authority as “tentative” and to that extent
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 17 of 20
this Court is in agreement with the findings of the Tribunal that the
disagreement note is not tentative and the charge against the
respondent had been held to be established before putting the
respondent to notice with reasons for disagreement by the Disciplinary
Authority.
23. The Tribunal has relied on Rule 15(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1960
and the decision of the Supreme Court in Lav Nigam Vs. Chairman and
MD ITI Limited and Anr. (2006) 9 SCC 440 holding as under:-
“10. The conclusion of the High Court was contrary to the
consistent view taken by this Court that in case the
disciplinary authority differs with the view taken by the
inquiry officer, he is bound to given notice setting out his
tentative conclusions to the appellant. It is only after
hearing the appellant that the disciplinary authority would
at all arrive at a final finding of guilt….”
24. The Tribunal has also held that the final expression of opinion by
the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with some components of
the charge as not proved by the inquiry officer, is against the mandate
of the provisions contained in Rule 15(2) of the Rules of 1965, as also
against the principles of natural justice and thus, set aside the
th
disagreement note and consequently, the punishment order dated 9
September, 2008 was passed.
25. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and
circumstances, is unable to demonstrate that the disagreement note
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 18 of 20
was tentative and not a final expression of the opinion regarding the
guilt of the respondent. In para-3 of the disagreement note, it has been
categorically recorded that the ingredients of article of charge has been
found to be proved against Dr. Pahari, taking it from any point.
26. This court is not satisfied with the plea raised by the petitioner
that since the respondent was given an opportunity to represent against
the disagreement note, it has to be construed as tentative and not final.
This plea is to be rejected for the reasons as detailed hereinabove and it
cannot be held that the finding of the Tribunal suffers from any
illegality, irregularity or any perversity.
27. In any case, the Tribunal has set aside the disagreement note,
which was a final expression of the guilt of the respondent and the
penalty imposed pursuant thereto. The Tribunal has, however, given
the liberty to the petitioner to proceed against the respondent from the
stage of receipt of inquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority and to
form a tentative opinion, if any, that the report of the inquiry officer
does not merit acceptance and that all the components of charge
against the respondent has been tentatively made out and in that case
to convey a tentative disagreement note to the respondent and after
giving him an opportunity to make a representation and considering the
same to pass an appropriate order.
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 19 of 20
28. In totality of the facts and circumstances and for the foregoing
reasons, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal
th
dated 8 April, 2010, passed in the original application bearing OA No.
2234/2008 titled as Dr. M.B. Pahari Vs. UOI and Anr. The writ petition
is without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed. All the pending
applications are also disposed of. Considering the facts and
circumstances, no cost is imposed on the petitioner.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
OCTOBER 12, 2011.
„k‟
WP(C) No.7420/2011 Page 20 of 20