IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE J.M.F.C., PUNE AT PUNE
Regular Criminal Complaint No. 1198 / 2011
Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware Age: 54 yrs. Occupation: Service Residing at: A-11, Vijayraj Sankul, Near Medipoint Hospital, D P Road, Aundh, Pune – 411007. — ComplainantVersus
1. Dr. Arun Kumar,
Director of Personnel, DOP, DRDO,
DRDO Bhavan, N. Delhi- 110 105.
2. V. P. Pande,
Associate Director of Personnel, DOP, DRDO,
DRDO Bhavan, N. Delhi- 110 105.
3. I. B. Arora,
Joint Director of Personnel, DOP, DRDO,
DRDO Bhavan, N. Delhi- 110 105.
4. B. B. Sharma,
Joint Director of Personnel, DOP, DRDO,
DRDO Bhavan, N. Delhi- 110 105.
5. S. B. Yadav,
Deputy Director of Personnel, DOP, DRDO,
DRDO Bhavan, N. Delhi- 110 105.
6. Abhinavjeet Ojha,
Deputy Director of Personnel, DOP, DRDO,
DRDO Bhavan, N. Delhi- 110 105. —Accused
Complaint under section 167 and 170 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code
The Complainant most humbly submits as under:-
1. The Complainant was a Gazetted Group ‘A’ Officer with designation Technical Officer ‘B’ in High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune – 411021, the unit of DRDO, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. He joined his
service on 20.09.1983 and was illegally suspended on 24.08.2009 and then illegally dismissed on 30.12.2010. His entire service period is spotlessly clean.
The accused are the ranking officers of the Directorate of Personnel, DRDO, New Delhi. The Directorate of Personnel is the highest office which deals with the personal matters of Central Govt. servants in DRDO. But, the Director of Personnel is not the Disciplinary Authority of the Complainant. As per CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority of Gazetted Group ‘A’ officer like the Complainant is the Director General Research and Development (DGR&D), New Delhi.
2. Accused No.1 suspended the Complainant under Rule 10 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 24.08.2009. But, as per Rule 10 (1), accused No.1 is not, at all, competent to sign the suspension order of the Complainant. Only DGR&D is competent to suspend or take disciplinary action against the Complainant as he is the only and exclusive disciplinary authority of the Complainant. Accused No.1 has admitted the fact in his deposition as a Defence Witness in the Inquiry Proceeding of the Complainant on 08.06.2010. He prepared the suspension order in a manner which he knew and believed it to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause injury to the Complainant. He does not hold such disciplinary authority; still he pretended to hold an authority to suspend the Complainant and in such assumed character, prepared the suspension order of the Complainant. When the accused No.1 signed and prepared the suspension order of the Complainant without having any authority, his only intention was to cause injury to the Complainant.
3. Accused No.2 has issued the Memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 03.09.2009 and has issued order for appointment of Inquiry Officer. Only DGR&D can issue such order. Accused No.2 knew it well that he does not hold any such authority to issue the Memorandum or order of appointment of I.O. He knew it to be incorrect to prepare such documents, still with the only intention to cause injury to the Complainant, he signed and prepared above referred two documents.
4. Accused No.3 issued order for grant of subsistence allowance to the Complainant on 19.11.2009. By Rule, only DGR&D can issue such order. Accused No.3 knew it well that he does not hold any such authority to issue such order; still with the only intention to cause injury to the Complainant, he has issued such order.
5. Accused No.4 issued Memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to the Complainant on 07.10.2009. He issued the appointment order of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer on 25.11.2009. By Rule, only DGR&D can issue such orders. Accused No.4 knew it well that he does not hold any such authority to issue the Memorandum or to issue the appointment orders of I.O. and P.O. He knew it to be incorrect to sign and prepare such Memorandum and orders, still with the only intention to cause injury to the Complainant, he has done it.
6. Accused No.5 has issued Penalty Order to the Complainant under Rule 11 (ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 08.12.2010. It is the exclusive right of the DGR&D who is the only Disciplinary Authority of the Complainant. Accused No.5 knew it well that he does not hold any such Disciplinary Authority, still with the only intention to cause injury to the Complainant; he prepared this document of penalty order.
7. Accused No.6 issued Penalty (Dismissal) Order under Rule 11 (ix) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 30.12.2010. This is the severe most punishment for the Central Government servant. This is the exclusive domain of the Disciplinary Authority who is the DGR&D.
As per Article 311 (1) of the Constitutional of India, no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an All India Service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.
Here, the DGR&D is the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority of the Complainant. Accused No.6 is very much subordinate to him. Still, by flouting the Constitution and CCS (CCA) Rules, he has dismissed the Complainant.
Accused No.1 who is superior to Accused No.6 has admitted that he is not the Disciplinary Authority of the Complainant and he has not suspended him. When the superior officer is not competent even to suspend the Complainant, the accused No.6 who is comparatively the low grade officer, has issued the severe most penalty order of dismissal blatantly without any authority. He knew it well that he does not hold any such authority to dismiss the Complainant from the service. He has done it knowingly and with the sole intention to injure the Complainant.
8. Moreover there are no such posts as Associate Director, Deputy Director, joint Director, Assistant Director or Additional Director in DRDO. No Gazette Notification to that effect is available in DRDO. It has been admitted by Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) in his letter No. DIITM/02/2091/P/2010 dated 20.05.2010.
9. Thus all the accused, the Director and all these so-called Associate, Deputy and Joint Directors from the Directorate of Personnel have committed offence under Sections 167 and 170 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. They have committed the offence in the discharge of their official duties. The only intention of these officers was to cause injury to the Complainant. From suspension of the Complainant till his dismissal from the service, the accused have jointly done it in furtherance of their common intention to cause injury to the Complainant. Accused No. 1 to 6 are from the same office i.e. Directorate of Personnel, DRDO.
All these accused officers have used DGR&D’s exclusive powers to the exclusion of DGR&D himself.
Thus, all the accused have jointly and severally committed the offence under section 167 and 170 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.
10. Cause of Action: – First arose on 24.08.2009 when the Accused No.1 illegally suspended the Complainant and was continuous till 30.12.2010 when accused No.6 illegally dismissed the Complainant. The Legal Notice under section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure was sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence on 12.02.2011 for according the sanction. The complaint is well within limitation.
11. Jurisdiction: – All the illegal orders issued by the accused at New Delhi office have been effected at Pune. The offence has been done to the Complainant at complainant’s office of HEMRL, Sutarwadi, Pune – 21. The Complainant was ordered by the accused not to leave his station i.e. Pune during suspension period. Very clearly, the place of offence is Pune. So, this Hon’ble Court has the Jurisdiction to try this complaint.
12. The Complainant, therefore, prays that:-
- Process may kindly be issued against all the accused.
- All the accused may be punished as per law.
- Any other order may be passed in the interest of justice.
Pune
Date: 21.03.2011 Complainant
Advocate for Complainant
(Mr. B R Barge)
VERIFICATION
I, Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware Age: 54 yrs, Occupation: Service, Residing at: A-11, Vijayraj Sankul, Near Medipoint Hospital, D P Road, Aundh, Pune – 411007, do, hereby, state on solemn affirmation that the contents in column No. 1 to 12 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information. Hence, I verified the same on 21st March 2011 at Pune.
Complainant
Order below Exh. 1 in R.C.C. 1198/2011
1. Perused complaint of complainant recorded u/s. 200 of Cr.P.C. I have also perused the documents filed with list at Exh. 03 and 06 by the complainant. From record; it appears that it is complaint for the offences punishable u/s 167 and 170 r/w. s 34 of IPC. It also appears that all six accused are officers of Directorate of Personnel, DRDO, New Delhi, a body which deals with personal matters of Central Government Servants.
2. As per contention of complainant, accused No.1 had suspended him. In view of Rule 10 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, accused No.1 was not at all having authority to issue such suspension order of the complainant. Accused No.1 admitted said fact in his deposition before Disciplinary Authority. Said deposition is placed on record at Sr. No.7 at List at Exh. 03.
3. Moreover, accused No.2 issued Memorandum under Rule 14 of above Rules. He had no such authority to issue such Memorandum to the complainant. Moreover, accused No.3, who issued order for grant of subsistence allowance to the complainant, had no authority to issue such order. Furthermore, accused No.4, who issued Memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, to the complainant, had no such authority to make appointment order of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. Furthermore, accused No.5 issued penalty order having no authority. Accused No.6 issued penalty (Dismissal) order had no authority to issue the same.
4. Thus, in my view, the above evidence on record, prima facie makes out the case for the above mentioned offences, hence issue process against all six accused for the offences punishable u/s 167 and 170 r/w. s 34 of IPC. Matter be kept on 22.07.2011.
Date: 13.06.2011 (P.K. Deshpande)
JMFC, Court No.9, Pune
Leave a Reply