1. The applicant was appointed as Education Officer in 1978 in the Central Board for Worker's Education (CBWE), Government of India, Ministry of Labour and was posted at Tinsukia. He was later promoted to the rank of Selection Grade Education Officer in 1995. The applicant was served with show cause notice dated 17.8.1999 while he was working as Education Officer (SG) alleging financial irregularities including that he had obtained personal gratifications and was guilty of dereliction of duty while working as Education Officer (SG) during the year 1997-98. On 1.9.1999 the applicant filed his reply to the show cause notice wherein he did not deny the contents of show cause notice, but stated that there were compelling circumstances under which he was forced to receive money. The applicant proposed to deposit the amount involved unauthorisedly received by him and he also sought a chance to talk personally to explain the matter. Thereafter, the applicant received chargesheet dated 6.1.2000 and he filed his reply dated 21.1.2000 wherein he again reiterated that he had admitted all the charges in his letter dated 1.9.1999 and that he again admits all the charges under articles of charge and had nothing to say. However, he placed the circumstances under which he was forced and pressurised by others to join the money earning culture at Tinsukia Centre.
Thereafter, departmental enquiry was initiated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 read with Para 2 of the Third Schedule to the CBWE (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1962. The Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 7.4.2000 fixed the date of preliminary hearing on 28.4.2000. According to the applicant, during the preliminary enquiry on 28.4.2000 he was asked to admit the charges and was assured that his case would be looked into leniently. After that he was asked to sign a paper which was prepared and kept ready beforehand which was signed by him. Thereafter the applicant received the impugned order of dismissal dated 4.9.2000. He submitted representation on 13.10.2000, but was asked to file appeal. He accordingly filed appeal on 8.1.2001. In appeal directions for payment of compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of pension and gratuity were sanctioned in lieu of forfeiture of his pension and gratuity. He filed another appeal for reconsideration, but no further relief was granted to him. The applicant has approached this Tribunal challenging order dated 4.9.2000. The applicant blames the Regional Director of the Centre, M.A. Siddiqui and Dr. P.K. Talukdar who had introduced him and forced him to join them in the money earning culture. It may be mentioned here that the said Regional Director, M.A. Siddiqui and Dr.
P.K. Talukdar had already been dismissed from service.
2. Mr. M. Chanda, learned Counsel for the applicant, urged before us that the admission of guilt of the applicant was not unequivocal but conditional because the applicant right from the beginning placed the circumstances under which he was forced to accept money by Regional Director, M.A. Siddiqui and Dr. P.K. Talukdar. In view of this, he argued that conducting enquiry under Rule 14(5) was mandatory and as no such enquiry was conducted, the departmental proceedings are required to be set aside. He has relied upon authorities which we shall refer to when we shall elaborately deal with the arguments placed by him. The second point which the learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted is that the applicant was not provided with a copy of the enquiry report and since furnishing of the enquiry report was mandatory, the departmental proceedings are required to be quashed. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon some authorities. Thirdly, it is urged that the applicant was not given any opportunity for personal hearing during enquiry. It was further contended that the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority did not apply their mind. He further argued that Rules 14, 15 and 16 have not been followed and in any case the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate and as such the punishment calls for interference.
3. Mr. B.C. Pathak, learned Addl. C.G.S.C., appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted before us that admission of guilt is unequivocal in respect of which no further enquiry was required to be conducted and that he did not avail of the opportunity which was available to him for leading any evidence on his behalf. On the question of non-furnishing of the report of the Inquiry Officer, it is urged that what was to be seen is prejudice, if any, caused to the applicant on account of non-supply of the report, but in the facts and circumstances no prejudice has been caused to the applicant on account of non-furnishing of the report of the Inquiry Officer since the enquiry report was based upon admission of guilt of applicant himself.
Learned Counsel for the respondents also placed reliance upon authorities which we will discuss later. According to him, all the relevant rules have been followed and the punishment under no circumstances can be said to be disproportionate so as to call for interference by this Tribunal.
4. The first issue which is required to be determined in this application is whether any further enquiry was necessary after the applicant had admitted the articles of charge. Rule 14 (5) (a), (9) and (10) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on which the decision on the question under consideration rests, read as under: "On receipt of the written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted, or , if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint under Sub-rule (2), an Inquiring Authority for the purpose, and where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Government servant in his written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority shall record its findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in Rule 15.
"(9) If the Government servant who has not admitted any of the articles of charge in his written statement of defence or has not submitted any written statement of defence, appears before the Inquiring Authority, such authority shall ask him whether he is guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charge, the Inquiring Authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the Government servant therein.
(10) The Inquiring Authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the Government servant pleads guilty." 5. In order to appreciate the question under consideration, it is necessary to refer to various replies filed by the applicant. By memorandum dated 17.8.1999 the applicant was asked to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The applicant had filed reply dated 1.9.1999 in which he had categorically and unequivocally stated that he did not want to deny the contents of memorandum dated 17.8.1999, but would like to place certain facts to give an idea of what was going on at C.B.W.E., Tinsukia. According to him, when he joined Tinsukia Centre in the month of January, 1996 from Tezpur Centre, he came to know that people were accepting money for conducting programme. He was also insisted to join hands with them but he decided not to be involved in that circle. This statement would clearly show that the applicant very well knew that what was going on was not only illegal, but wrong and that is why according to him he decided not to be involved in that circle. Nevertheless, according to the applicant he accepted the amount as guest talk fees on being asked by the Regional Director. He further states that once he got involved in the money accepting machinery, he had to obey the Controlling Officer and as a result he wrote to the organisation requesting them to pay some amount as faculty fees. The guidelines were given to him by the Regional Director himself. He also referred to certain negative approaches of the Headquarter and submitted that the amount received by him was spent by him for various purposes for the benefit of the department. Thereafter, memorandum dated 6.1.2000 was issued ordering departmental enquiry against the applicant and the applicant filed his reply dated 21.1.2000 in which he stated that he had already admitted all the charges raised against him vide his letter dated 1.9.1999 and he was again admitting the charges and again placed the circumstances under which he got into the circle of money accepting machinery. The Inquiry Officer was appointed and vide order dated 7.4.2000 the matter was fixed on 28.4.2000. In this letter it was specifically mentioned that no witnesses will be examined on that day and the purpose of the enquiry was to sort out the preliminaries to lay down a time schedule for inspection of the listed documents, submission of the lists of additional documents, defence witnesses and to record defence statement. On 28.4.2000 the applicant once again accepted the charges unconditionally and the statement in this respect reads as under : "I accept all the charges unconditionally. However, I, with folded hands, say that whatever I did, I had to do alongwith Dr P.K. Talukdar, Education Officer, by the then colleague at Tinsukia under compulsion from Shri M.A. Siddiqui, the then Regional Director. I assure that I will not repeat such act in future and pray for mercy.
I am making this statement on my own free will without any duress with full understanding and realisation of the consequences." 6. The proceedings further show that consequent upon the unconditional acceptance of the charges by the charged official during the preliminary hearing the enquiry was closed. This document was signed by the applicant as also the Presenting Officer and the Inquiring Authority. This was apparently done under Rule 14 (9 & 10) of Rules quoted above. It appears that though the applicant had admitted the charges in letter dated 17.8.1990 and 21.1.2000, the Disciplinary Authority acting upon Rule 14(5)(a) thought fit to give opportunity to the applicant to put up his case before the Inquiry Officer inasmuch as the applicant had asked for personal hearing. The Inquiry Officer submitted report on the basis of admission of charges and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service and in appeal the applicant was granted compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of pension and gratuity in lieu of forfeiture of pension and gratuity. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the admission was not unconditional and that the applicant was forced to sign the minutes of the preliminary enquiry accepting the charges. It was also urged before us that the document was in fact prepared on 26.4.2000 and the applicant was merely asked to sign the same on 28.4.2000. In this connection our attention has been drawn to the date '26th April, 2000' figuring in Annexure-VI. The applicant for the first time raised the issue that he was forced to sign the minutes of the preliminary hearing only after the imposition of the penalty and prior to that there was no whisper on his part that he was forced to sign on already prepared statement. In fact, the applicant had earlier in his reply, i.e., 1.9.1999 and 21.1.2000 had also in unequivocal terms admitted the charges and the theory of being forced to sign the preliminary enquiry minutes on 28.4.2000 is nothing but an afterthought. It is clear from the plea of the applicant dated 28.4.2000 that the plea was unconditional, unequivocal and made out of free will and without any outside force.
7. The learned Counsel for the applicant has urged before us that the applicant wanted to place facts referred to in his applications dated 1.9.1999 and 21.1.2000 before the Inquiry Officer, but no opportunity was given to him and in order to illustrate his point he drew our attention to Para 2 of the order dated 4.9.2000 of the Disciplinary Authority. This para is merely a narration wherein it is stated that the applicant admitted all the charges levelled against him but also desired that he should be given a chance to appear before the Inquiry Committee or to explain all the happenings personally besides showing preparedness to deposit the amount he received in the Board's Account through his letter dated 21.1.2000. The applicant, in fact, had ample opportunity, in case he so desired, to place whatever facts he desired before the Inquiring Authority on 28.4.2000 and in fact he did state in statement to be Inquiring Authority that whatever he did, he had to do alongwith Dr. P.K. Talukdar, Education Officer, who was then his colleague and under compulsion from Shri M.A. Siddiqui, the then Regional Director. The applicant was categorical in his statement that he accepted all the charges unconditionally and that he was making statement on account of his own free will without any duress and with full understanding of the consequences. Thus, the applicant had placed his stand before the Inquiring Authority. But, can anyone accept this stand taken by the applicant? Can anyone be forced against his will to accept illegal gratification? The applicant was fully aware that what was going on was money accepting machinery and money making culture and in spite of that he joined the company of the said officers who have been dismissed.
8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant had accepted that charges unconditionally and unequivocally.
The question to be decided, therefore, is whether any further enquiry is required to be conducted, once the applicant had unconditionally and unequivocally accepted the charges. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon a number of judgments of this Tribunal.
9. Rulings upon which reliance has been placed by learned Advocate for the applicant cannot be applied since facts therein are totally different. In Mam Chand Bajoria v. Union of India and Ors., 2001(3) ATJ 296, the services of the applicant therein were terminated on the basis of admission of guilt and no Inquiry Officer was appointed, no enquiry of any kind was conducted, and no evidence was recorded. It was also found that the letter purporting to be admission of the applicant did not establish ,the fact that it was plain, unequivocal and unambiguous admission of the applicant. In this case reliance was placed on Jagdish Prasad Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1070 and some other judgments of the Tribunal. The Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad's case has held that if statement made by the delinquent official did not amount to clear or unambiguous admission of his guilt, failure to hold a formal enquiry constituted a serious infirmity in the order of dismissal passed against him, as the delinquent official had no opportunity at all of showing cause against the charge. On the facts of the said case it was further held that even if the appellant had made some statements which amounted to admission, it was open to doubt whether he could be removed from service on the strength of the said alleged admissions without holding a formal enquiry as required by the rules.
10. In T. Narayanan v. Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer Carriage and Wagon Works, Madras and Ors., 1999(1) ATJ 403 which was relied upon in Mam Chand Bajoria v. Union of India and Ors.(supra), it was laid down that even if an employee has admitted the charge it is incumbent on the part of the authorities to prove the charge by placing a material before the Enquiry Officer and examine the witness on their part. The relevant rule which was under consideration in this case was Rule 9(17) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 which is not pari materia to Rule 14 (5)(a) to which we are concerned. In that case, the Inquiry Officer had merely questioned the delinquent official orally on the basis of which order of removal was passed. Thus, this case also does not help the applicant.
11. Reliance is also placed on K. Bhaskar v. The C.O. HQ Training Command (Unit), Air Force, Bangalore and Ors., 2002(1) ATJ 434, wherein it was held that the admission of the delinquent officer must be in specific, clear and unambiguous terms. In that case it was found that the applicant had only signed on the dotted lines, but the relevant documents including the so called letter of confession and appeal of mercy appeared to have been typed on one typewriter only leaving the space to put his signature and as such on the facts of the said case it was held that the same were not voluntary, specific, clear and in unambiguous terms.Dharam Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 1994(1) SLJ 425. In this case, the Tribunal held that under Rule 14(5)(a) of the CCS/CCA Rules it was required to record its findings on every charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall set in the manner laid down in Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules which provides that even for imposing minor penalty which is likely to affect the amount of pension adversely, the enquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in Sub-rule (3-b) (23) of Rule 14 before making the order imposing such penalty.
13. The learned Counsel for the applicant has also placed before us a judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench in Manindra Chandra Dhar v. Tripura Road Transport Corporation and Ors., 2002(1) GLT 518. In this judgment it has been laid down that Sub-rule 5 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 makes it abundantly clear that if the Government servant admits the articles of charges in his written statement of defence, no enquiry need be conducted into the articles of charges as are admitted, but if the Government servant does not admit all or any of the articles of charges in the written statement of defence, an enquiry is to be conducted in terms of the rules. In that case no written statement of defence was filed by the applicant, but he had admitted the guilt in his preliminary statement after which no enquiry was held by the Inquiry Officer into the articles of charge. In the circumstances it was held that report of the Inquiry Officer holding the applicant guilty of the charges stood vitiated.
14. Another ruling upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the applicant is in a Division Bench ruling of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Farhad Ali v. Secretary, Assam State Agriculture Marketing Board and Ors., 2004(2) GLT 586. In this case there was denial of allegations by the officer in his written statement. The enquiry was held ex parte and the report of the Inquiry Officer was also not furnished to the official concerned. It was in this set of facts that it was held that the admission of guilt, if any, was inconsequential in view of specific denial of allegations in written statement and the conduct of enquiry as ex parte and non-furnishing of the enquiry report was held to have caused prejudice to the charged official.
15. At this stage we shall refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharmarathmakara Rajbahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution v. Educational Appellate Tribunal and Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 332=2000(3) SLJ 128 (SC). In this case the appellant had admitted the charges and no enquiry had been held in terms of Section 6 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975. The Apex Court has observed that what is the enquiry to be made when one admits violation. In that case the facts were almost admitted and it was apparent on the face of record and in spite of opportunity no worthwhile explanation was forthcoming. Even before the Apex Court, when respondent 2 was given opportunity to give any prima facie or plausible explanations on records to defend her actions, nothing could be produced by her. The Apex Court further observed that giving of opportunity is a check and balance concept that no one's right is taken away without giving him/her right of opportunity or without enquiry in a given case or where the statute requires, but his cannot be a case where allegations and charges are admitted and no possible defence is placed before the authority concerned.
16. Learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mahadeo Prasad Gautam v. Regional Manager Food Corporation of India and Ors., 1986(1) SLR 306. In this case it was found that misconduct had been admitted by the applicant and therefore, no enquiry was required to be made into those admitted facts and, Regulation 58(5)(a) itself contemplated an enquiry only about matters which are not admitted and indicated, for obvious reason, that admitted facts require no enquiry to be made.
17. In the case before us also we had given opportunity to explain the conduct of the applicant, but no plausible explanation was coming forth. Can it be a justification that when looting was going on and when others were looting the establishment, the person charged for looting could be said to say that he looted because others were looting. The case of the applicant is that he was forced into the acceptance of money culture by the Regional Director, M.A. Siddiqui and Dr. P.K. Talukdar. The services of both of them have already been terminated. We had asked the learned Counsel for the applicant as to whether Regional Director, M.A. Siddiqui and Dr. P.K. Talukdar would come before the authority or the Court to say that they had forced the applicant into the unethical practice of accepting money. Learned Counsel for the applicant categorically stated that they would not obviously come forward.
18. Therefore, we have absolutely no hesitation in stating that where the admission is clear, unambiguous, unequivocal, no enquiry need be conducted under Rule 14 (5) (a) or Rule 14 (9 & 10). Rule 14 (5) (a) clearly enjoins that on receipt of the written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority may itself enquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted, or, if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint under Sub-rule (2), an Inquiring Authority for the purpose, and where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Government servant in his written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority shall record its findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in Rule 15. Thus, where articles of charge are admitted there is a discretion with the authority and the conducting of enquiry in all cases is not necessary. In the case before us we are of the opinion that in view of the clear, unequivocal and unconditional admission of the charges by the applicant not only in the written statement filed on 21.1.2000 but even prior to that vide letter dated 1.9.1999 as also statement before the Inquiry Officer on 28.4.2000, there was no need to hold any further enquiry. We are not able to accept the contention of the applicant that the statement on 28.4.2000 was recorded forcefully or under pressure. No plausible explanation at all could be offered for the stand taken by the applicant that he was forced and initiated into the culture of earning money by Regional Director, M.A. Siddiqui and Dr. P.K. Talukdar. It is surprising that the applicant calls the taking of illegal gratification as culture. We do not, therefore, find any merit whatsoever in the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant.
19. Coming now to the next contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant relating to non-furnishing of enquiry report, the question boils down to prejudice, if any, caused to the applicant on account of non-furnishing of the enquiry report. The Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, 1993(3) SLJ 193, has laid down that when the Inquiry Officer is not the Disciplinary Authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the inquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. The Apex Court examined the question as to what is the effect of the order of punishment when the report of the Inquiry Officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to the employee in such cases. It has been laid down that when the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely, while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. It is further laid down that the theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights and they are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions.
Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial of the report has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, where even after furnishing of the report no different consequences would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and get all consequential benefits. This amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits.
20. In this case, the report of the Inquiring Authority was filed by the respondents, copy of which has been furnished to the applicant. The enquiry report proceeded on the basis of admission of charges unconditionally by the applicant and the stand taken by the applicant in relation to the Regional Director, M.A. Siddiqui and Dr. P.K.Talukdar has been referred to in the enquiry report. We have already come to the conclusion that no plausible explanation has come forth nor possibly it could have offered since one cannot be said to say in his defence that since others were doing so he also did so. Therefore, the non-furnishing of the report would not, in fact, cause any prejudice to the applicant. We had also asked learned Counsel for the applicant to show us as to what prejudice had been caused to the applicant, but he was also not able to show prejudice, if any, caused to the applicant in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the non-furnishing of the enquiry report which has not caused any prejudice to the applicant has absolutely no effect in the matter. Ruling of Apex Court in S.K. Singh v. Central Bank of India, (1996) 6 SCC 415=1997(1) SLJ 235 (SC) also supports this proposition.
21. In so far as argument relating to non-application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority is concerned, in the light of admission of guilt, we do not find any merit in this argument.
22. We find that the rules have been complied with and in our view the punishment imposed can by no stretch of imagination be said to be shocking or disproportionate to the charges levelled against the applicant. The principles in this respect are laid down by the Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 484 in Para 18 which reads as under : "A review of the above legal position would establish that the Disciplinary Authority, and on appeal the Appellate Authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately would the relief, either directing the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof." The applicant has already been shown compassion in appeal filed by him, inasmuch as two-thirds compassionate allowance of pension and gratuity was sanctioned in lieu of forfeiture of pension and gratuity.
For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this application and the application is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.