it2025_00904 — Appointment of IO and PO without considering the defence version to the charge-sheet amounts to pre-determining the issue to conduct inquiry, which is against principles of natural justice

Appointment of IO and PO without considering the defence version to the charge-sheet amounts to pre-determining the issue to conduct inquiry, which is against principles of natural justice — The chunk is about an Applicant who made a representation regarding withheld increments and was then issued a show-cause notice, to which there was no response before the appointment of an Inquiry Of... — Facts: Initially appointed on deputation basis as Court Master in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Applicant was permanently absorbed in the said organization in June, 2005 and was promoted as Recovery Inspector in DRT in 2006. In the month of January, 2009, a complaint was lodged with the CBI, Gandhinagar against the Applicant and one Advocate alleging demand of illegal gratification pursuant to which, a trap was laid by CBI and during trap the Applicant with another person was alleged to have found been with amount received by them as part of illegal gratification from the complainant. After investigation, CBI had filed a charge-sheet with Special Judge, Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in November, 2009. The Applicant remained under suspension, from 23-1-2009 to 21-4-2010. During suspension period, the Applicant was not granted any annual increment and thus he was paid the salary which he drew prior to suspension. Even the benefits of VII Pay Commission was not allowed to him. The Applicant nearing his date of superannuation in June, 2023 had, in June, 2022 made a representation to the authorities for release of withheld increments so that the last pay drawn would be correctly fixed as of June, 2023, which is a must for arriving at the entitled basic pay which would form the basis for his pension and other terminal benefits. In the month of June, 2022, the Applicant, considering the fact that his retirement which was due on 30-4-2023, was fast approaching and also considering the fact that the accounts section in the Respondent department would shortly commence the exercise of determining the exact amount of provisional pension had submitted a formal written representation, dated 17-6-2022 requesting to release his annual increments right from the year 2009 till then and accordingly, prayed to fix his pay as per 7th CPC. Instead of taking remedial steps in this behalf, the Respondent No. 3 issued a Memorandum, dated 14-7-2022 calling upon the Applicant to show-cause within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said Memorandum as to why appropriate disciplinary action under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 should not be initiated against him. The Applicant had duly submitted his reply, dated 25-8-2022 against the aforesaid Memorandum to which there was no response and IO and PO were appointed and the IO posted the case for hearing on 16-1-2023.Thereafter, the Applicant had challenged the impugned Charge Memorandum and other related communications on plural grounds with prayer to quash and set aside the order of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant as also the order of nominating the IO and PO and issuance of Charge Memorandum. In reply, it is averred that the Applicant made a representation, dated 17-6-2022 requesting to release all his increments and to fix his pay as per 7th Pay Commission. It is denied that Respondent No. 3 has no authority to issue the orders. The order of appointing IO and PO were issued as per Rules. There is no bar to initiate inquiry at belated stage. Mere delay in initiation of inquiry cannot be looked at with prejudiced mind, especially when charges are grave and for which even criminal proceedings are going on.