IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, PUNE AT PUNE
Regular Civil Suit No. 1200/2011.
Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware Age: 55 yrs. Occupation: Service Residing at: A-11, Vijayraj Sankul, Aundh-Baner, D.P. Road, Pune – 411 007. — PlaintiffVs.
1. Dr. Vijay Kumar Saraswat, Age: 62 yrs. Occupation: Service The Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri and Director General, Research & Development, DRDO, DRDO Bhavan, New Delhi- 110105. 2. The Union of India Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, South Block, New Delhi -110 011. — DefendantsSUIT FOR RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION AND DAMAGES :- Re. 1/- (RUPEE ONE ONLY)
The plaintiff most respectfully submits before this Hon’ble Court as under:-
1. The plaintiff was working in High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune, the unit of DRDO, under Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India. He was working as a Technical Officer ‘B’. It is a Gazetted Group ‘A’ post. He completed 26 years’ spotlessly clean service in HEMRL, Pune. Not a single letter of instruction / warning, any memo or any show cause notice is on his entire record.
But on 24.08.2009 at 16.45 hrs, the Plaintiff was suspended by fax order, all of a sudden, without any show cause notice. The suspension order bears the signature of Dr. Arun Kumar, the Director of Personnel (DoP). The order is issued as per section 10 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, but Dr. Arun Kumar is not the authority who can sign the suspension order of a Gazetted Group ‘A’ Officer. Dr. Arun Kumar, on 08.06.2010 has admitted this fact in his deposition as a Defence Witness before the Inquiry Officer. The Plaintiff immediately lodged a protest against this unauthorized and hence illegal order. As the Defendant No.1 is the Director General of DRDO and as he is the only Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had submitted a copy of the protest to him also.
2. Though the ultimate responsibility of the working of DRDO lies with Defendant No.1, he did not take any cognizance of the protest of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff submitted his grievance to the Defendant No.1 through his letters sent on 16.09.2009, 21.10.2009, 03.12.2009, 18.12.2009, 02.03.2010, 27.05.2010, 09.07.2010, 14.07.2010, 24.08.2010 and 01.12.2010. The Plaintiff sent him the legal notices on 14.09.2009, 02.03.2010 and 19.03.2010. But Defendant No.1 did not give any response to any of the letters or notices of the Plaintiff. He did not take any cognizance of the grievance of the Plaintiff.
3. The Plaintiff was illegally compelled to go through the Inquiry proceedings and was penalized on 08.12.2010 under Rule 11 (ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules. This penalty order was issued by one Mr. S B Yadav, the Dy. DoP who is not at all the Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff. As if this was not enough, the Plaintiff was dismissed from the service. This Dismissal Order under Rule 11 (ix) of CCS (CCA) Rules was issued by one Mr. Abhinavjeet Ojha, the Dy. DoP, who is not at all the Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff.
As per Article 311 of the Constitution, no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.
4. The DGR&D is the only Appointing and Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff. No officer below his rank can take any Disciplinary Action against the Plaintiff who is a Gazetted Group ‘A’ officer and a Doctorate fellow. As per Organization Chart of DRDO, DGR&D is on the top. Below him there are 11 CCR&Ds. And under one CCR&D, DoP is there. The person who has signed the dismissal order of the Plaintiff is one of the staff members of the Directorate of Personnel. There are no such posts as Associate Director, Deputy Director, Joint Director or Assistant Director in DRDO. Mr. Abhinavjeet Ojha is a self-styled and self-proclaimed Deputy Director of the Directorate of Personnel.
5. The Plaintiff filed a Criminal complaint No. 1198/2011 in the Court of Hon’ble J.M.F.C. Court No.9, Pune against Dr. Arun Kumar, the DoP and his 5 colleagues. Hon’ble Court issued process against them all under sections 167 and 170 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant No.1 to immediately suspend these accused as per Rule 10 (1) (b) of CCS (CCA) Rules.
6. Though the Defendant No.1 is the only Disciplinary Authority of the Plaintiff, the officers much below his rank issued suspension order and penalty orders without any authority. The Plaintiff put up his grievance to Defendant No.1 but he did not take any action against the unauthorized officers. He remained a silent spectator. Moreover, he protected his erring subordinates who, without any authority played with the service life of the Plaintiff.
7. The Plaintiff is dismissed from the service by the unauthorized officers and the Defendant No.1, the Head of DRDO is just looking at the situation as if he is not concerned at all. His inaction has deprived the Plaintiff of his service. Plaintiff has suffered a lot due to his inaction.
8. Revengefully and mercilessly the Plaintiff has been dismissed from the service without any monetary benefits. Without giving a single Rupee to the Plaintiff, he has been driven out of DRDO, after 26 years’ spotlessly clean service. The Plaintiff is running 56 years of his age and huge liabilities are ahead of him now. And at such time the Plaintiff is extinguished from the service by a blatantly unauthorized and low grade officer. The provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules regarding the suspension and the dismissal have been arrogantly flouted by the unauthorized officers who are systematically protected by Defendant No.1. This is nothing but a torture by a very responsible officer i.e. Defendant No.1. As per the Organization Chart of DRDO he is the apex authority. Being a Disciplinary Authority, he has not dared to sign the dismissal order of the Plaintiff. He remained behind the curtain. His cowardly behavior has ruined the service life of the Plaintiff. This unbecoming of a Government servant is liable for the torture of the Plaintiff. He is liable to pay the compensation to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff wants compensation for his sufferings from Defendant No.1
9. The amount of compensation is not material at all. Liability of Defendant No.1 to pay the compensation to the Plaintiff is material. The Plaintiff wants only one Rupee as the compensation. This one Rupee will definitely soothe the injury which Defendant No.1 has inflicted on the Plaintiff by his impotent neutrality in the matter.
10. Notice to Government: Actually this suit is not against the Government, but as the Govt. officer is involved in his personal capacity, the notice u/s 80 of Civil Procedure Code has been sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence on 27.04.2011 for information only. The Plaintiff has not received any reply to the said notice from Defendant No. 1 or 2. Defendant No. 2 has been made formal party to this suit.
11. Jurisdiction: As the plaintiff is residing in the city of Pune and cause of action has happened in Pune, Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try this case.
12. Cause of Action: First arose on 24.08.2009 when the Plaintiff was suspended by the unauthorized officer in DRDO. The cause of action is continuous since then till this date as the Defendant No.1 is protecting the illegal acts of his subordinates.
13. Court Fee: As this suit is for recovery of compensation of Rs.1/- (Rupee One only) it has been valued for Rs.1/- and required stamp of Rs.200/- is given herewith.
14. It is, therefore, prayed that:-
a. The Defendant No. 1 may kindly be ordered to pay compensation and damages of Re.1/- (Rupee One only) to the Plaintiff.
b. Permission may be granted to amend the suit, if required.
c. Any other just and equitable orders may be passed in the interest of the justice.
Pune Dated: 29/08/2011 Plaintiff (Dr. R G Taware) (Mr. B R Barge) Advocate for PlaintiffVERIFICATION
I, Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware, Age – 55 years, Occupation – service, R/at- A-11, Vijayraj Sankul, S.No. 244, Aundh-Baner, D P Road, Pune- 411007, do, hereby, verify the above contents from Para 1 to 14 as true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and in witness whereof I have put my signature under it at Pune on this 29th day of August 2011.
Plaintiff
(Dr. R G Taware)
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, PUNE AT PUNE
Regular Civil Suit No. 1200/2011.
Dr. Rohidas Gopinath Taware . — Plaintiff
Vs.
Dr. V K Saraswat and other 1 — Defendants
List of Documents submitted by Plaintiff is as follows:-
|
Sr.No. |
Description of Document |
Date |
Page No. |
|
1. |
Legal Notice to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, u/s 80 of Code of Civil Procedure | 27.04.2011 | 01 – 02 |
|
2. |
Notice to Defendant No.1 (Dr. V K Saraswat) | 27.04.2011 | 03 – 05 |
|
3. |
Suspension Order | 24.08.2009 | 06 |
|
4. |
Protest letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for suspension order | 26.08.2009 | 07 – 09 |
|
5. |
Legal Notice to Defendant No.1 | 14.09.2009 | 10 – 11 |
|
6. |
Representation of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 against illegal order of suspension | 16.09.2009 | 12 – 13 |
|
7. |
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for subsistence allowance | 21.10.2009 | 14 – 15 |
|
8. |
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal suspension by DoP | 03.12.2009 | 16 – 17 |
|
9. |
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal extension of suspension period | 18.12.2009 | 18 – 19 |
|
10. |
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 through the Director, HEMRL for inquiry and action for C-PAR for the year 2008 | 02.03.2010 | 20 – 23 |
|
11. |
Notice to Defendant No.1 | 02.03.2010 | 24 – 25 |
|
12. |
Notice to Defendant No.1 | 19.03.2010 | 26 – 27 |
|
13. |
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal extension of suspension period | 27.05.2010 | 28 – 30 |
|
14. |
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal suspension & extension of suspension period | 14.07.2010 | 31 – 34 |
|
15. |
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for anniversary of illegal suspension | 24.08.2010 | 35 – 37 |
|
16. |
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal extension of suspension period | 01.12.2010 | 38 – 39 |
|
17. |
Penalty Order under Rule 11 (ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by Mr. S B Yadav, Dy. DoP | 08.12.2010 | 40 – 41 |
|
18. |
Dismissal from service : Penalty Order under Rule 11 (ix) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by Mr. Abhinavjeet Ojha, Dy. DoP | 30.12.2010 | 42 – 43 |
|
19. |
Protest letter against Punishment Order dated 08.12.2010 by Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 through the Director, HEMRL | 01.01.2011 | 44 – 45 |
|
20. |
Protest letter against Punishment Order dated 30.12.2010 by Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 through the Director, HEMRL | 10.01.2011 | 46 – 47 |
|
21. |
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for illegal dismissal from the service | 14.01.2011 | 48 – 50 |
|
22. |
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for reservation of right of appeal | 14.01.2011 | 51 – 52 |
|
23. |
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 for reinstatement after penalty order dt. 08.12.2010 | 15.01.2011 | 53 – 54 |
|
24. |
Letter of Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 through the Director, HEMRL regarding service benefits | 07.03.2011 | 55 – 56 |
|
25. |
Notice to Defendant No.1 | 14.06.2011 | 57 – 58 |
|
26. |
Penalty Order by Mr. M Natarajan, DGR&D to Mr. M A Muhatte, STA’C’, HEMRL, Pune | 30.06.2005 | 59 – 60 |
|
27. |
Penalty Order by Dr. V K Saraswat, DGR&D (Defendant No.1) to Mr. D T Bhosale, TO’A’, ARDE, Pune | 17.03.2011 | 61 |
|
28. |
Regular Criminal Complaint by Plaintiff against Dr. Arun Kumar, DoP and his 5 colleagues in the Court of Hon’ble JMFC, PuneVerification of Complainant
Order below Exh.1 in RCC 1198/2011 Order below Exh.1 in RCC 1198/2011
|
21.03.2011
09.06.2011 07.05.2011
13.06.2011 |
62 – 67
68 – 71 72
73 |
All Xerox copies of documents are submitted by the Plaintiff.
Total No. of Documents: 28 (Twenty Eight) &
Total No. Pages : 73 (Seventy Three only).
PuneDate: 29.08.2011 Adv. For Plaintiff
(Mr. B.R. Barge)