Judgment:
Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
The applicant was issued memorandum dated 29.7.1998 proposing to hold an enquiry against him under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the enquiry was proposed to be held, has been set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charge. The same reads as follows:
Shri Vanraj Chavda, Shri P. P. Krishnan and Shri I. R. Goswami were posted as Administrative Officer, Estate Supervisor and Care Taker respectively and performing their duties during the year, 1994.
That M/s. Otoklin Plants and Equipment Ltd. had been allotted a land of 39.40 acres in KFTZ to start their 100% Export Oriented Unit on 20.5.93 at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq. mtr. and thereafter the firm had taken possession thereof on 20.5.93. The firm M/s. Otoklin Plants and Equipment Ltd, thereafter requested KFTZ to allot them an additional land admeasuring 40 acres on 9.3.94. subsequently the demand of additional land was raised to 100 acres by the firm vide their letter dated 31.5.94 for enabling them to store their bare and coated pipes. The KFTZ Board, New Delhi, approved the proposal for allotment of additional land of 100 acres for a period of six months at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq. mtr.
That, the firm M/s. Otoklin paid Rs.4,04,600/- on 6.6.94 being the rent amount, after deducting 50% of the amount as concession allowed under Import Export policy.
That, Shri P. P. Krishnan, Estate Supervisor and Shri I. R. Goswami Care Taker paid a visit on 19.8.94 to the Unit M/s. Otoklin Plant and Equipment and thereafter the said Shri Krishnan prepared a note in his handwriting stating that the firm had been making use of the additional land since over three months. It was also mentioned in the note that for safeguarding the Government revenue a rent @ penal rate should be recovered from the party for their unauthorised occupation of the additional land. The note was then signed by the said Shri Krishnan, Shri I.R. Goswami and Asstt. Security Officer Shri T. S. Parihar and then the note was marked to Administrative Officer Shri Vanraj Chavda and handed over to him. Accordingly on the basis of the note a draft letter of recovery of rent at the penal rate of Rs.10/- per Sq. Mtrs. was also prepared by Shri Krishnan in his own handwriting and details of land i.e. plot No., dimension and area, and total area etc. were written by Shri T. S. Parihar and the draft letter was also handed over to Shri Chavda for action.
That the said Shri Chavda, instead of collecting rent/penal rent from the firm for the period from May, 1994 to august, 1994, allowed the firm to use the additional land unauthorisedly without its allotment.
That the said Shri P. P. Krishnan and Shri I. R. Goswami as per the direction of Shri Chavda visited M/s. Otoklin Plants and Equipment in the second week of September, 1994 and collected Rs.60,000/- from Shri L. H. Mehta, Administrative Manager of the firm. Shri Chavda then confirmed over telephone to Shri Mehta of receipt of Rs.60,000/- by him. The amount was then equally distributed among all three. They then destroyed the note sheet as well as draft letter and did not bring those documents on record to process them officially.
That, the said Shri Vanraj Chavda did not follow the procedure of allotment, and the additional land was issued in January, 1995 with retrospective effect.
In this manner, the said Shri Vanraj Chavda, the then Administrative Officer exhibited lack of devotion to duty, integrity, honesty and thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.Sequel to a departmental enquiry, the applicant was visited with the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with further direction that during the period of such reduction he would not earn any increments of pay and on expiry of such period the reduction would have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay, vide order dated 13.10.2000. The applicant challenged the order aforesaid before this Tribunal in OA No.2625/2000, which was dismissed, and not disposed of, as mentioned in the present Application, by this Tribunal on 9.1.2002. Against the order aforesaid the applicant preferred a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in which the following order came to be passed on 9.2.2009:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order in revision has been passed and therefore he wants to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file fresh petition incorporating challenge to the said revision petition. Liberty granted subject to just exceptions.
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
It appears that before the order aforesaid came to be passed, the applicant had filed an application for review, and not revision, as incorrectly stated before the Hon’ble High Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 20/28.1.2009 (Annexure A-1). Present Application has been filed challenging the same very order of punishment dated 13.10.2000. Indeed, a challenge to the order passed in review dated 20/28.1.2009 has also been made in the present Application. The permission granted by the High Court to file a petition incorporating challenge to the order in revision (in fact, review) is subject to just exceptions. When confronted with the position that when the impugned order dated 13.10.2000 has since been confirmed by a court of competent jurisdiction, how a review application against the same would at all be admissible, no answer is forthcoming, but for that since permission has been granted by the Hon’ble High Court, present Application would be competent. We are of the considered view that when an order on judicial side has intervened, by which the basic order of punishment is confirmed, no review would lie against such order before the same very authority who passed the same. Review, if at all, may be permissible would be of an order of the Court, as otherwise there would be no end to litigation. If the course as adopted by the applicant is permitted, a litigant may try his luck up to the Supreme Court and having lost the matter at every stage, may seek review of the order of the original authority, which has been confirmed up to the highest Court of the land, thus having a second round of litigation, again, may be, up to the Supreme Court. This would result into total chaos. The litigation would never end. Courts at every level would become store-houses of litigation.
2. The statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour has already been reproduced above. It would transpire that the charges framed against the applicant were partly proved. We may refer to the findings that may be relevant, returned by the enquiry officer. The same are reproduced below:
6.15. M/s Otoklin Plants and Equipments was using the land unauthorisedly and this had come to the notice of CO but CO did not inform this fact immediately to the DC. Regarding collection of Rs.60,000/- by S/Shri Krishnan and Goswami on the directions of CO, there is no evidence to substantiate it. Shri L. H. Mehta from whom Rs.60,000/- were allegedly accepted by Shri Krishnan and Shri Goswami did not appear in the hearings. From the no tings in Ex.S-4, it appears that things were not smooth between CO and Shri Parihar. There is no evidence except the statement/deposition of Shri. Parihar that the CO had demanded and accepted Rs,60,000/- from M/s Otoklin Plant and Equipments Ltd. The actions of Shri Parihar also become doubtful since he did not report the matter in Sept., 94 to the development Commissioner and preferred to remain quiet and produced Ex.S-1 only in June, 95 to the CBI.
6.16. It emerges from the documents and depositions that a visit was made by Shri P. P. Krishnan, Estate Supervisor; Shri I. R. Goswami, Caretaker; and Shri T. S. Parihar, Asstt. Security Officer on 19.8.94 to the unit of M/s Otoklin Plants and Equipments and a note was prepared by Shri Krishnan and signed by the three officers. The note was marked to the CO. Shri Parihar made a visit to the extension area of the units with the JE, NBCC also. CO also paid a visit to the extension area on 7.9.94 and found that the unit was using the additional land. A draft letter of recovery of rent on the basis of the note (Ex.S-1) was also prepared as indicated by Shri P. P. Krishnan in his deposition. However when CO submitted the file (Ex.S-4) on 22.9.94 to DC in connection with grant of rent concession to the unit, this was not disclosed by him to the DC. It was only when a note (page 23/N, Ex.S-4) was put up by the ASO that this fact was mentioned by the CO in October, 94 and brought to the notice of the DC. CO therefore intended to exploit the information. It is clearly indicative of the mala fide intentions of the CO.
6.17. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the charge against the CO is held as partly proved.
What appears from the discussion of the enquiry officer and in particular, paragraphs reproduced above, is that the applicant was held guilty of permitting unauthorised use of land by M/s Otoklin Plants and Equipment Ltd. Insofar as, the charge of bribery is concerned, the same was not proved. Shri P. P. Krishnan, Estate Supervisor and Shri I. R. Goswami, Caretaker had visited the said firm on 19.8.1994. Shri Krishnan prepared a note in his handwriting stating that the firm had been making use of the additional land since over three months. He also mentioned in the note that for safeguarding the Government revenue, penal rent should be recovered from the party for its unauthorised occupation of the additional land. The note was then signed by Shri Krishnan, Shri Goswami and Shri T. S. Parihar, Assistant Security Officer, and then the note was marked to the applicant and handed over to him. On the basis of the note, a draft letter of recovery of penal rent was also prepared by Shri Krishnan in his own handwriting and details of the land were also mentioned. The charge as stood proved against the applicant was that instead of collecting rent/penal rent from the firm for the period from May, 1994 to August, 1994, he allowed the firm to use the additional land unauthorisedly without its allotment. The factum of the firm M/s Otoklin using additional land stood proved beyond the shadow of doubt. It was not even disputed that the said firm was not proceeded against for charging penal rent. At this stage, we may mention that the applicant sought review of the order on various grounds, but the only ground which could, if at all, be permitted in limited scope of review, was discovery of new evidence. The applicant urged that a new evidence had been received from CBI to the effect that the note dated 19.8.1994 was still in existence. CBI is stated to have confirmed vide its letter dated 16.7.2008 in response to his application dated 2.7.2008 under RTI Act that note dated 19.8.1994 with original marking was submitted during the RDA proceedings, and a photo copy had been retained. On the basis of what has been mentioned above, it was urged by the applicant that if the note was recovered from the last signatory, Shri T. S. Parihar, in original, then how he take action on it, and where would be the question of destroying the could note when the same is available. We do not find from the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour that the allegation against the applicant may be that the note was destroyed. The simple case against the applicant was that M/s Otoklin was using 100 acres of land unauthorisedly and the applicant did not, despite the knowledge of the same, initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of penal rent. The fact that M/s Otoklin was using the land unauthorisedly was to the notice of the applicant. He had himself visited the site and confirmed it. If the note was available, then it was all the more reason for the applicant to take action. We may, however, mention that insofar as, the reviewing authority is concerned, while dismissing the review application vide order 20/28.1.2009, it has observed that CBI had confirmed that original note of 19.8.1994 having been destroyed, only photo copy thereof was produced during the enquiry proceedings. Even if, challenge to the order of review may be permissible, the applicant, in our view, would have no case for us to interfere in the matter.
3. Finding no merit in this Application, we dismiss the same in limine.