Judgment:
1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short, the Tribunal), Patna Bench, Patna dated 4.1.2005, in O.A. No. 54 of 2004, whereby, respondent No. 1, Sachchida Nand Mishra, who was working at the relevant point of time as Divisional Engineer 'Group A', posted at Patliputra Telephone Exchange and also, was looking after the work of Patel Nagar Telephone Exchange, came to be charge-sheeted by the department, appellants before us, which on being questioned before the Tribunal were found favoured with as a result of which the memo of charges dated 15.9.2003, came to be quashed and, therefore, this writ petition at the instance of the Employer.
2. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have, also, been taken through the relevant material evidence in course of the submissions. We have, also examined and evaluated the contents and quality of the impugned order of the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal in short found from the record that the memo of charges suffers from the vice of:
1 vagueness and uncertainty in so far as the charge of lack of integrity and devotion to duty against the respondent was alleged.
2 The respondent was sought to be proceeded with for major penalty on flimsy grounds and unsupportable by the material on record.
3 That the respondent at the relevant time was nearing his superannuation and was also due for promotion. It may be mentioned here that unfortunately, by this time, it is stated at the Bar, the respondent has retired without promotion.
4. No doubt, it is true, ordinarily the Administrative Tribunal or, for that purpose, any decision making authority on judicial adjudication will be at loathe to interfere with the discretion and freedom of Master or Employer to arraign a tainted or an errant employee or officer departmentally or in a domestic enquiry. Therefore, ordinarily, this is the domain of the Master. However, it is not to be misunderstood as unqualified, unfavoured and that the Employer can move and roam about in that domain like Roman Knight. It is imperative, not expedient for the Tribunal or the authority for judicial adjudication to take into consideration in an exceptional case like one in hand and peep into the jurisdictional discretional domain of the Employer for initiation of the departmental proceeding against the employee in a given situation. It the authority or the Court finds that discretionary power or exercise of such right of the Employer is misused, abused or exploited by whatever reason or compulsion like flimsy grounds taking up or digging out from the deep grave such shallow excuses, can put the employee or the officer concerned in the enquiry proceeding so as to keep him out of the promotional avenues for any reason whatsoever and the judicial conscience can never be satisfied by stretching the jurisdictional domain of the Employer. Since the authority or the Court is obliged to protect the interest of the employee or the Officer concerned as otherwise the very meaning and beneficial constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 311 read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India shall be rendered struck off. Therefore, it cannot be accepted as a proposition that even in a fact situation like one on hand, the Court should raise its hands, awaiting the outcome of the departmental proceeding, in helplessness and remain a mute spectator. This proposition is very well established.
5. Now, the only question which remains to be examined is as to whether the observations and the ultimate conclusion recorded by the Tribunal in quashing the memo of charges is in any way vulnerable requiring our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The following factually admitted conspectus shall be the answer to the question :
1 The respondent, Divisional Engineer was looking after the work of cable laying entrusted to a contractor by the Government of India, as he was, substantively, holding the charge in the office of the Divisional Engineer of Patliputra Telephone Exchange.
2 Even in the preliminary Enquiry, the C.B.I. could not find any material implicating the respondent Sachchida Nand Mishra the Divisional Engineer.
3 Regular Departmental proceeding for major penalty was recommended only against the Junior Engineer, Sri Sanjay Kumar and against all others including Mr. Mishra only minor penalty was recommended. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings came to be initiated but for against the respondent Divisional Engineer Shri Mishra, even the superintendent of C.B.I. did not find any material for recommending major penalty and recommended for minor penalty, the proceedings initiated against him was otherwise for major punishment.
4 Though the C.B.I. recommended for blacklisting of the contractor, Hindustan Cables Limited (H.C.L.) no action came to be taken and contemplated against the contractor. Why?
5 The entire contract on turnkey basis was given to the Contractor H.C.L. which is not attached for consideration. Why?
6 None of the five documents provided to the delinquent respondent Shri Mishra in support of the memo of changes, as rightly submitted even does not lead to an inference of prima facie misconduct as alleged in the memo of charges.
7 Again, one more interesting aspect' be noted here that the circular of the year '1987' of the appellants also did not require the Divisional Engineer, Patel Nagar Exchange a post held by Mr. Mishra in addition to his own duty to supervise 10 percent checking in cable work. The job of the Divisional Engineer was to only certify that the cable has been tested after the contractor completed the work of cable laying and the same was checked by the Junior Engineer and accepted by the Assistant Engineer. Such stage, however, had never reached because neither the contractor had completed the cable laying work nor any payment was made to him.
8 The circular issued in May, 2004 envisaging random check to the extent of 10 per cent of cable laying work could not be made applicable retrospectively against the respondent Mr. Mishra in so far as the alleged misconduct manifested in the memo of charges of the year 1998-99 in concerned.
9 Even by looking into the prima facie finding of the C.B.I., it appears that the proper filing and dispatch system was faulty in the entire Patna Telecome Division under control and care of the Chief General Manager and not restricted to the office of the Divisional Engineer, Patel Nagar Exchange.
6. After having taken into account the entire factual profile and the content and colour of the impugned order of the Tribunal, the relevant settled proposition of law and the catalogue of chronological events recorded even by the C.B.I., as well as placed on record of this writ petition. We have not been able to persuade ourselves nor any material has been spelt out from the record otherwise which would warrant our interference with he impugned order of the Tribunal. The only left fate of the writ petition is the dismissal at the threshold.
Accordingly, this writ petition shall stand dismissed without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.