Deleting private respondents
P. Venu
(Querist) 10 October 2015
This query is : Resolved
In an Original Application filed in Central Administrative Tribunal against the adverse entries made in the Annual Performance Assessment Reports (APAR), the Reporting Officer and the Officer who had disposed of the representation against the entries have been made private respondents because of specific pleading of malice against them. The Official respondents as well as the one among the private respondent have filed the written statements through the same Government counsel. The other private respondent has also filed the written statement through the same counsel, but the same has been returned because of some defects.
In the meanwhile, there has been a change in the Government counsel. He has now moved a Miscellaneous Application (MA) on behalf of the Official respondents to delete the private respondents; no copies have been served on them nor have they have given any no objection.
Is such a course of action permissible and the MA maintainable? The learned experts are requested to suggest their valuable suggestions/opinions.
Guest
(Expert) 10 October 2015
Mr. Venu,
You have missed one very important information from your description. You have not mentioned any specific reason for making the concerned officers, as the private respondents. There is no place of private respondents in official actions of the concerned officers against any serving employee, unless the concerned Government Officers have already retired from their service. All business is done on official designations, not in personal names. APAR is not written by any officer in his private capacity. However, you can make those officers, as your own witnesses, if you like, due to certain specific reasons.
So, if they are still in service, there is nothing wrong, if the GC has moved an application for removal of private respondents.
P. Venu
(Querist) 11 October 2015
As stated in the query itself, they have been joined as private respondents because specific pleadings of malice against them.
The averments against the Reporting Officer has been that he had issued many instructions which were not reasonable and could have resulted in irrevocable injury to innocent persons and the general public, if implemented.
The averments against the other officer has been that she had turned a blind eye to these aspects while deciding the representation.
The Reporting Officer was in service at the time of filing the OA, but has since retired.
Guest
(Expert) 11 October 2015
Dear Shri Venu,
Although the Government Counsel can be expected to plead vehemently for the removal of private respondents to pave his way for comfortable trial/win, as private respondents in such type of a case cannot easily be justified.
But if the targetted officers had proven malice, prejudice or bias against the officer reported upon, you must also object vehemently on dropping of those respondents on at least one or two elements of proof. However, if the judge intends to agree on the plea of the GC, you must request the judge to allow them to be produced as court witnesses with the plea that they had been instrumental in intentionally spoiling the career of the officer and justice would be miscarried, if those officers are not subjected to cross examination.
By virtue of their being court witnesses you would be able to cross-examine them rather than their being your own witnessss. Only your chance to cross-examine can tilt the judgment towards the aggreived party.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 11 October 2015
nothing to add more.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 11 October 2015
Even if they were not respondents and even if the court agrees to the malice against them still deptt could be requested to take action against them.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 11 October 2015
I agree with Mr. PS Dhingra, an expert, to a great extent.
However, in an Original Application before the bench of Central Administrative Tribunal there is no provision for leading evidence (except that is a matter or record) and/or cross examine witness(es)by applicant or respondent.
K.S.Srinivas
(Expert) 13 October 2015
I agree the with the expert Sri Dhingra.
