Departmental enquiry
R C Meena
(Querist) 27 October 2016
This query is : Resolved
A penalty of reduction of one increment for one year without comulative effect imposed on me. OA dismiss by CAT. In review i filed some additional fact for which Were not considered by CAT . Order challenge upto apex court but no success. Could i file fresh OA with all facts including new facts?
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 27 October 2016
By now you may be having 20 Kg papers.
None can advise you without perusal of the same.
Guest
(Expert) 27 October 2016
Mr. RC Meena.
I am of the opinion, yours is not a problem, but an academic query.
By the way, how many OAs would you file in how many courts simply to save one year's increment that too without cumulative effect.
Also, what was the charge and after pursuing what process did you adopt in your own department after issue of penalty order and on what specific ground you proceeded to the CAT with your OA?
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 28 October 2016
Author need to reply questions from expert P. S. DHINGRA.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 28 October 2016
Mr. Sudhir Kumar is right.
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 28 October 2016
Agreed with experts. however first you have to submit appeal to your HOD/higher authority, next to Government and finally you have to approach CAT.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 29 October 2016
The experts have advised well on the matter leaving nothing more to add.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 31 October 2016
The author is still mum on replying the questions from expert P. S. DHINGRA.
Guest
(Expert) 31 October 2016
His silence for the last three days on my question clearly reveals that his query was merely an academic query, not his personal problem.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 31 October 2016
The author has issues and have posted many threads.
The author after posting query should post full facts and respond.
R C Meena
(Querist) 31 October 2016
I am extremely sorry for delay response.
First thanks to all.
It is not acadamic query but real situation arises against me.
Some detail facts are as under:
In 2004-05 , i was posted in building department of MCD . It was the time when no engineers was willing to work in building department. I have taken maximum actions and the same were appreciated by sh. Patel Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi HC, addl commissioner and Engineer in chief but 11 RDA and 3 criminal case have been imposed on me on the basis of fabricated documents. Out of 11 RDA i.e. Departmental action i have been exonerated in 8 cases and 2 are pending before CAT. 3rd is present one. I have alao been discharged in one criminal case and other are under trial.
Each and every case is on the basis of false and fabricated documents.
Sir
The present case is too weak out of all the cases but causing problem.
In this case
Inquiry proceedings were not according to process.
Penalty has been imposed by Disciplinary authority
Penalty was modified by appellateauthority but my other fellows have been exonerated . Hence action of appellate authoriy is against the principles of parity.
OA was dismissed by CAT
RA rejected as additional documents were not produced in OA and were not on oath.
Writ in HC dismiss
SLP in SC dismiss
On today, it has come to my notice that the orders which were under challenge before CAT were again modified in secrect and not communicate to me. Modification is that the period of suspension would be treated as dies non including the penalty of one increment for one year without commulative effect.
Could i filed a fresh OA before CAT?
Though I am in financial crisis and i am appearing in my all cases but i need an advocate for this problem.
Pl help.
R C Meena
(Querist) 31 October 2016
An advocate living near kamla nagar may give his address.
Guest
(Expert) 31 October 2016
Dear Shri Meena,
Instead of restricting your reply to departmental inquiry related facts, you have confused the issue by making a mix up of several things at a time, including court cases.
The relevant facts are still far away for arriving at some purposeful opinion. For example, you have not stated whether suspension, the period of which has been treated as dies non, was deemed suspension against some criminal case or made by dint of departmental proceedings.
However, if suspension was on account of departmental inquiry proceedings under Rule 14 case pertaining to major penalty, but concluded with stoppage of one increment (minor penalty), the suspension period should have been treated as duty for all purposes. If otherwise, rest of the opinion can be formed only after going through the suspension and charge sheet/ departmental inquiry related documents.
Now about lawyer, I wonder, why you feel the need for an advocate now near Kamla Nagar, when one or two lawyers would already have fought your cases up to Supreme Court! A question arises, why you don't want to rely upon your existing lawyers?
R C Meena
(Querist) 31 October 2016
Sir
I was suspended with pending enquiry.
R C Meena
(Querist) 31 October 2016
Sir
Due to financial problem , i was not able to higher an advocate. I had appeared in person upto HC and The SLP was prepared by an advocate who is my freind for SC court only.
Dhingra sir,
I wish to contact uou if you are pleading at CAT
R C Meena
(Querist) 31 October 2016
Dhingra sir
I wish to place the complete fact before you for appropriate guidance and advice.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 31 October 2016
"Could i file fresh OA with all facts including new facts?"
not understood what do you mean
what advise you expect from this forum without sharing even a single fact of the case.
Do you really consider experts of this forum to be magicians or prashnashatri astrologer.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 31 October 2016
LCI Expert Dr. J.C. Vashista; Delhi appears in CAT.
You can benefit from his counsel.
Place all facts in order before consultation.
R C Meena
(Querist) 31 October 2016
Right sir
Give me a day
I will place all facts in order before this forum
Guest
(Expert) 31 October 2016
You may feel free to follow the advice of Shri Kumar.
R C Meena
(Querist) 01 November 2016
The petitioner is a Degree holder Engineer and was appointed in the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi as Assistant Engineer (Civil) and joined on 01/09/1998. Earlier he was working in Northern Railway w.e.from 20.10.1986. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 17/01/2006 (Saturday) along with seven other Assistant Engineers with pending RDA on the basis only two documents (i). Recommendation of Director of Vigilance vide note dated 17/01/2006 i.e Exhibit S-1, (ii). The list of properties which were demolished at ongoing stage i.e. Exhibit S-2
1. A representation for revocation of suspension was submitted by the petitioner along with 6 other AEs but representation of only one Sh. Hissamuddin AE in RDA case no 1/129/2006 was forwarded by the CVO/MCD to the Commissioner/ MCD with the recommendation as under:-
“AE Hisamuddin remained in the area for a period of 2 Months and 26 days only. His representation may be considered and RDA no 1/129/2006 may be dropped.”
And same was accepted by the Commissioner/MCD and RDA of Sh. Hissamuddin AE was dropped by the Commissioner/MCD vide order dated 30/07/2007 and notified vide dated 08/08/2007.
Tenure of Petitioner which was considered in the charge sheet was from 08/11/2005 to 16/1/2006 (2 Months and 9 days) which was less than the tenure of Sh. Hisamuddin AE.
2. Petitioner was reinstated back in service vide order dated 07.6.2006.
3. A charge sheet No.1/125/2006 dated 02.01.2008 was issued to the petitioner after lapse of two year and following charges were made against the petitioner in the charge sheet:-
i. He failed to get stopped/demolished the unauthorized construction carried out in the area under his charge at its initial/ongoing stage, as per detailed indicated in the enclosed list.
ii. He also failed to get booked the unauthorized construction carried out in the said properties for taking action u/s 343/344 of DMC Act.
iii. He also failed to get action initiated for sealing the unauthorized construction u/s 345-A and for prosecution of owner/builder u/s 332/461 or complaint u/s 466-A of DMC Act.
iv. He also failed to get action initiated for disconnection of electricity and water supply of the premises to prevent the unauthorized construction.
v. He also failed to exercise proper supervision and control over the functioning of his subordinate staff, who did not take proper and timely action against the unauthorized construction.
4. The reply to charge sheet was submitted by the petitioner but not considered and Inquiry officer was appointed and in order to substantiate the charges framed against the charge officer, prosecution examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and exhibited listed documents i.e Ex. S-1 and Ex. S-2. S-1 stands for note of director of vigilance/MCD dated 17/01/2006 and Ex. S-2, stands for list of properties obtained from Zone.
5. In the inquiry report the findings of the inquiry officer are as under;-
Charge -1 Not proved
Charge -2 Partly not proved
Charge-3 proved
Charge-4 proved
Charge-5 Not proved
6. A representation dated 11/01/2010 against the inquiry report dated 09/12/2009 was submitted by the petitioner and after that a penalty of ‘reduction in pay in the present time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect shall run separately’ was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 24/05/2010.
7. In appeal the penalty was modified by the Appellant Authority to ‘reduction in pay in the present time scale of pay by two stages for a period of one year without cumulative effect which will run separately’ was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 27/09/2011.
8. The petitioner had challenged the penalty order dated 24/05/2010 issued by the Disciplinary Authority and penalty order 27/09/2011 modified by the Appellant Authority before the Hon’ble CAT vide OA no. 43/2012 but the OA was dismissed by the Hon’ble CAT vide order dated 12/05/2015.
9. A Review application no. 188/2015 was also filed by the petitioner against the order of CAT dated 12/05/2015 in OA 43/2012 but the same was also rejected by the Hob’ble CAT vide order dated 18/08/2015. The additional documents were not considered by the Hon’ble CAT in RA and observed as under:-
“14. Further, the review applicant has nowhere been able to state on oath that he was not aware of the existence of the noting of the pages from 33 to 40 of the RA, which he has now produced at Annexure A-2, and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to state today that he could not have discovered with due diligence that piece of evidence, as now produced by him as Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3 (colly) in this RA, and the existence of it could not have been known to him, or that these could not have been produced by him earlier along with his O.A. even after exercise of due diligence. If the applicant has taken shelter behind these Notings of 2009, then he could have very well obtained copies of these file notings even before filing of his OA in 2012, and certainly before passing of the order in the O.A. on 12.05.2015. Therefore, we are not convinced that the evidence, as now produced by him at Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3 (colly) of the R.A. is in the nature of some such new and important documents, which was not within the knowledge of the applicant, and could not have been produced by him while filing his O.A., or during the course of hearing of the OA, even after the exercise of due diligence.
15. the powers of review of this Tribunal are quite limited and a review applicant cannot be allowed to file an appeal in the guise of a review application. In our considered opinion, the Review Applicant is only trying to reargue the matter through this RA, which is not permissible in view of the ratio as laid down by the Honble Apex Court in State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sen Gupta 2008 (8) SCC 612.
16. ......
17. ........
18. Further, in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160 and in Subhash vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 2002 SC 2537, it was categorically held by the Honble Apex Court that in the garb of a Review Application, the Tribunal cannot re-examine the issue, and a review is allowable only if the error pointed out is plain and apparent, on the face of the record. We do not find that the review applicant before us has been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. We are bound by the Hon’ble Apex Courts judgments cited above.
19. In view of the above position, the Review Application No.188/2015 is rejected, in circulation.”
10. In addition to present case, applicant was also charge sheeted in 10 RDA cases by department and 3 Criminal cases by CBI. He has been Exonerated/order Quashed by Court in 8 RDA cases and 2 are under challenge. He has also discharge in one Criminal case and 2 still under trial.
11. Due to 11 RDA cases in 2005-06, the several penalties were imposed and modified and that is why fixation of pay was not done since 2006. Moreover, the pay which was he drawing in Railway was not protected.
12. After concluding the above 11 RDA cases, representation for fixation of pay was submitted and during the process of fixation of pay it has been revealed that penalty of reduction in pay in the present time scale of pay by two stages for a period of one year, without cumulative effect, which will run separately has been imposed by the respondent and period of suspension has been ordered to treated as dies non. These orders were not supplied to the applicant and issued in the secrecy.
13. Immediately, An RTI application was filed to obtain certified copies of Inquiry proceedings in RDA cases of All the AEs including Applicant but the same was not supplied by the PIO/Vigilance. An appeal was filed before FAA wherein orders were passed on 07.10.2016 to supply the same within 15 days. Despite the orders of FAA the documents were not supplied. The applicant again approached to the FAA for providing the required documents on 31.10.2016 and directions were given by him to PIO to provide the documents immediately.
14. Hence , applicant wish to file a fresh OA
R C Meena
(Querist) 01 November 2016
the above are complete facts. It is my humble request to the experts to advice me on the basis of these facts.
adv.bharat @ PUNE
(Expert) 01 November 2016
U can PM to Dr. Vashita he may guide you .
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 01 November 2016
You have posted in many threads.
You have a voluminous task.
You need to spend quality time with a a good counsel.
You asked for counsel that appears in CAT.
LCI Expert Dr. J.C. Vashista; Delhi appears in CAT.
You can benefit from his counsel.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 01 November 2016
NO consent from anyone is warranted to contact and consult anyone.
NO dissent is warranted.
Everyone may feel free to contact any Expert.
