Disciplinary proceedings: Appointment of presenting officer with personal interest vitiates fairness, necessitating replacement.

Gouro Chandro Tripathy (Applicant), a Programme Executive with All India Radio Cuttack, was served a charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, on 22.07.2022, containing six allegations of omission and commission

The Applicant retired from service on 31.07.2022

After requesting documents and time, he submitted his written statement of defence on 20.10.2022

Smt. R. Harsha Latha, DE, was appointed as the Inquiry Authority (IA) on 06.03.2023

Sri Tarun Kanti Routh was appointed as the Presenting Officer (PO) on 05.07.2023

The Applicant objected to Sri Routh's appointment as PO, citing personal rivalry due to a past complaint made by Sri Routh against him

This objection was rejected by the competent authority on 06.09.2023

The Applicant then filed this Original Application (OA), seeking to quash the charge memo, the appointment of the PO, and the rejection of his request for a change of PO

The respondents explained the delay in issuing the charge sheet, stating that a physical file related to a sexual harassment allegation was misplaced between 2019 and 2022 due to office shifting and the COVID-19 pandemic

They also stated that Sri Routh had conducted a preliminary inquiry in 2018

1. Whether the charge memo dated 22.07.2022 was invalid due to vagueness or unexplained delay in its issuance

2. Whether the non-supply of relevant documents along with the charge sheet prejudiced the Applicant’s ability to defend himself

3. Whether the appointment of Sri Tarun Kanti Routh as Presenting Officer was illegal and arbitrary given his alleged personal rivalry with the Applicant and his prior involvement in the fact-finding inquiry, thereby warranting his removal

The court considered principles of disciplinary proceedings under the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965

It applied the principle that while inordinate, unexplained delays can vitiate proceedings, a plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay in issuing a charge sheet may justify the proceedings

The court also emphasized the requirement of fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings

The court dismissed the Applicant's claim that the charge sheet was vague, finding no specific articulation of vagueness in the pleadings or prejudice suffered by the Applicant, especially since he submitted a defence statement on merit

Regarding the delay in issuing the charge sheet, the court accepted the respondents' explanation concerning the misplacement of the file, office shifting, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, deeming it plausible and satisfactory

The court found that the charges were grave and thus did not justify interfering with the proceedings based on delay

On the non-supply of documents, the court held that since the Applicant had submitted his reply and had the right to seek documents during the inquiry, this ground was not sufficient to intervene at that stage

However, the court found merit in the Applicant's objection to Sri Tarun Kanti Routh's appointment as PO, acknowledging the stated personal rivalry and the need for fairness and adherence to natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.

The court noted that the respondents' rejection of the Applicant's request for change of PO was unreasoned

However, the court quashed the rejection order dated 06.09.2023, regarding the appointment of the Presenting Officer

Consequently, the competent authority was directed to appoint a new Presenting Officer in place of Sri Tarun Kanti Routh within 30 days of receiving the order

Given the Applicant's retirement and the withholding of retirement dues, the respondents were also directed to ensure the inquiry is completed expeditiously, preferably within 180 days

The OA was disposed of accordingly, with no costs