Hari Narayan Meena vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Hari Narayan Meena, challenged an order dated December 21, 2022, by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which dismissed his Original Application (OA). The petitioner's OA sought to quash a charge memorandum dated March 8, 2021, and to be considered for promotion. The charge sheet alleged that the petitioner, while working as General Manager at Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Works (GOAW), Neemuch, intentionally availed Travelling Allowance (TA) twice for a single journey from Neemuch to Delhi and back between July 9-14, 2015, receiving an amount of Rs. 9,819/- twice. The charge sheet also alleged misrepresentation in official communication regarding the TA claim and failure to maintain integrity and devotion to duty, contravening CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The CAT had previously directed the respondents to expedite the disciplinary inquiry. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report, finding Article-I partially proved (petitioner did not exercise due diligence in receiving the same amount twice) and Article-II not proved.

Held

The High Court held that while the petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the OA without deciding on merits and that the charges did not constitute misconduct, and further contended that the charge sheet should be quashed given the Inquiry Officer's findings, the Court found that significant developments had occurred since the Tribunal's order. Specifically, the Inquiry Officer had submitted a report. The Court noted that Article-I was partially proved to the extent that the petitioner did not exercise due diligence while receiving the same amount for the second time, and Article-II was not proved. The Court opined that it would not be appropriate to quash the charge sheet at this stage, relying on the judgments cited by the petitioner. Instead, the Court directed that the competent authority should consider the petitioner's representation against the Inquiry Officer's report and pass a final, speaking order within eight weeks. The Court stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the final order, he is at liberty to seek available remedies. The Court did not decide whether the charge sheet should have been set aside, leaving that to the competent authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the Original Application without deciding on merits, thereby affecting the petitioner's service prospects and promotion, contrary to the directions for expeditious inquiry? 2. Whether the allegations in the charge sheet, even if accepted, constitute misconduct under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, or if they amount to a mistake by the Pay and Accounts Officer in processing the TA bills twice? 3. Whether the charge sheet should be quashed given that Article-II was not proved and Article-I was only partially proved to the extent of lack of due diligence, without any imputation of mala fide or intentional wrongdoing against the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The Tribunal failed to decide the OA on merits. The allegations do not amount to misconduct. If true, it was a mistake by the PAO. The petitioner's error, if any, was in depositing the excess amount, not claiming it. The charge sheet was issued with ulterior motive, affecting his promotion and leading to an adverse posting. Reliance was placed on judgments like V.K. Khanna & Ors., Ananta Saha & Ors., and Than Singh to argue for quashing the charge sheet. Revenue's arguments: The CAT's order was justified as the scope of judicial intervention at that stage was limited. The disciplinary proceedings were being conducted as per procedure. The Inquiry Officer's report, finding Article-I partially proved, indicates that the matter requires consideration by the competent authority.