Writ Petition of Punishment Quashing of UPSC officers Dismissed

The Delhi High Court on 10th May 2013 dismissed writ petition: WP (C) 1651/2012 and WP (C) 6559/2012 filed by UPSC challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal order of quashing of punishment of two UPSC officers in disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal had also directed the opening of the sealed cover with respect to the candidature of the one of charged officers for promotion and directed that in case if found eligible for promotion then the charged officer shall be accordingly promoted.

UPSC had filed writ petition challenging the above mentioned decision. The facts that led to the passing of this order by the tribunal were that the above noted charged UPSC officers were charged of misconduct of intentionally causing delay in filing of the special leave petition (SLP) to favour one of the candidates who had applied for recruitment that was to be conducted by UPSC and were also charged for the misconduct of showing in subordination to the Commission set up UPSC by writing opinion in spite of the decision of the Commission to file SLP before the Supreme Court of India.

This entire fiasco had resulted from the decision of the Division bench of Delhi High Court that had allowed writ petitions of candidates of the above noted recruitment test and had accorded the relief of submitting application beyond the final date of submission of forms and provided grace period of 7 days. The division bench had also held that candidates experience as contractual Doctors shall be taken into consideration for giving age relaxation for filing the form. The senior officer of UPSC had given the advice to challenge the decision of Division courtby challenging it before the Supreme Court of India by filing SLP. The senior officer though had also not provided an opinion as to issuance of admit card to the candidate who had submitted the form as per the directions of High Court.

The charged officers had allowed the acceptance of the admission form of the above noted candidate and also after approval from the Commission issued admit card to said candidate. The charged officer had during this course relied on the opinion of the Legal Counsel of the UPSC who had also recommended the same and asked to simultaneously file SLP. There was delay in filing SLP and as a result, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against them on the above noted grounds.

The charged officers or respondent had submitted their action was in view of no clear cut directions by the commission regarding admission form and admit card, fear of contempt proceeding against the commission for not complying with the mandamus issued by division bench and the on the basis of advice of Legal counsel. The respondent or charged officer also said notes written by the charged officers while sending file on the Delhi High Court decision pertained to, without prejudice, issuing of admission certificate pending supreme court considering he matter after the SLP was filed.

The Disciplinary authority inflicted penalty on the above mentioned officers by withholding one increment of pay on both officers on 2010 with further direction of withholding of increment up to November 2013 with a clarification that withholding of increment would not affect their pension.

The tribunal had taken the view that in view of order (that was challenged by charged officers) the officers were absolved from the components of ‘misconduct’ and the act of the officer did not amounted to misconduct. The tribunal held in fact the officer had in fact processed the issue with due diligence and lapse if any existed was on behalf of higher authority which failed to give appropriate directions in spite of proposals by the charged officers. The tribunal also had held that notes of the charged officers clearly reveal concern over the possible contempt proceeding that might have be initiated against the UPSC for not complying with the mandamus issued by the Division bench (as noted above).

The Delhi high court upheld the tribunal decision and held against the UPSC and observed that the tribunal had rightly opined that decisions rendered by the Commission was not indicative of what administrative steps could be taken till the SLP filed came up for consideration before the supreme Court. The Delhi High court also observed that tribunal had rightly opined that it was not that charged officers acted as per their opinion on law but had consulted the legal counsel for UPSC who had advised the same that admission certificate to be issued to the above noted candidate and simultaneously file SLP. The Delhi High Court upheld the tribunal decision and observed that in view of clear cut directions from the Commission, the charged officers had with bona- fide intension authored the notes to seek clear cut direction as to future course of action and there was no implied or express intension on part of them to confer benefit to above noted candidate or show in subordination to commission.

The Delhi high Court also observed that decision of tribunal was reasonable view and in view if settled law the writ court would not differ with a view, taken with respect to the facts, by a tribunal.

The Delhi high Court also observed a disturbing practice in respect of imposition of penalties to government servant. The court said that government officers when are subject to disciplinary proceedings than the disciplinary action should test the legality of what is alleged against them and should not become a matter to test the patience of the officer. The court noted the phenomena of cases of minor penalty proceeding being dragged for years when no inquiry is to be held in first place resulting in consequence of minor penalty becoming disproportionate to the penalty. The court also noted that pending the disciplinary proceeding, the recommendation of promotion are kept sealed unless the charged officer is acquitted from charged and in case was being held as liable retire without getting due promotion like in this case when disciplinary proceeding were held in 2007 and order given in 2010 with effect of lasting till 2013 when one of charged officers was due to retire.

The court said that in appropriate cases, the court should consider whether the delayed minor penalty orders could be anti - dated so as to the twin object could be achieved whereby the government officer is penalised for the wrong and no more at the same time disproportionate effect of the belated penalty with respect to the promotion could be mitigated.