Full Judgment
W.P.No.13185/2012 04.01.2013 Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Govind Patel, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, on advance copy.
Heard on the question of admission.
This writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 11.7.2012 passed in Original Application No.588/2011, by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for brevity) Jabalpur.
The petitioner has sought to challenge the orders dated 3.6.2011, 5.8.2010 and 8.9.2010, by which the respondent No.6 was appointed as enquiry officer, by filing Original Application before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
It was contended that the Vigilance Branch of the West Central Railway made a check and thereafter sent a charge sheet for imposition of major penalty on the petitioner.
The enquiry officer was appointed on 15.10.2009.
A representation was made by the petitioner for change of the enquiry officer, contending that he belongs to the Vigilance Department.
In an Original Application filed before the Tribunal observation was made by the Tribunal that the grievance of the petitioner be looked into by the respondents.
A retired senior Divisional Signal-cum- Telecommunication Engineer was appointed as enquiry officer, but later on by the order dated 5.8.2010, the respondent No.6 was appointed as enquiry officer.
It is contended that such an appointment was in fact violative of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India versus Prakash Kumar Tandon [AIR 200.SC 1719].wherein the Apex Court has said that if the enquiry is conducted by the Vigilance cell, the enquiry officer should not be appointed from the Vigilance cell itself.
It is contended that this particular law was not examined by the Tribunal and since the respondent No.6 is also one of the member of the Vigilance cell, he could not have been appointed as enquiry officer.
The principle of natural justice and fair play have been violated.
Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for respondents that the respondent No.6 is not a member of the Vigilance cell as has been categorically contended in the reply filed before the Tribunal.
It is contended that by filing the reply, it was pointed out that the earlier officer, who was appointed as enquiry officer gave in writing that he was not in a position to conduct the enquiry and, therefore, another officer was appointed as enquiry officer, out of the panel, by the order of the competent authority.
It is categorically contended that the present enquiry officer is not a member of the Vigilance branch.
Drawing attention of this Court to the memo dated 3.6.2011, it is pointed out that the present enquiry officer is working in General Administration Section which is under the administrative control of SDGM/ WCR and not under the Chief Vigilance Officer.
The enquiry cell is separate wing from the Vigilance Department.
Thus, it is contended that the Tribunal was right in holding that such contentions of the petitioner were not to be accepted and the Original Application has rightly been dismissed.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
As is clear from the facts stated in the memo dated 3.6.2011 (Annx.
A/25 to the petition).the present incumbent who is appointed as enquiry officer is not from the Vigilance Cell.
Thus, if an officer from other wing is appointed as enquiry officer, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Kumar Tandon (supra) has been violated by the respondents by making appointment of enquiry officer.
The reliance placed by the petitioner in the case of Registrar Cooperative Societies versus F.X.Fernando [(1994) 2 SCC 746].is also misconceived as there is no inordinate delay in taking action against the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the Tribunal need not be interfered with in this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge.
A.Praj.