Shri Manoj Mishra has thus companymitted breach of oath of secrecy which he took at the time of joining the Project.
Article IV That the said Shri Manoj Mishra, while functioning as Tradesman B in the aforesaid project established companytact with a Press companyrespondent to feed information enabling the press to create news story about the Project companytaining inflammatory and misleading information causing embarrassment to, and damaging the reputation of the Project and the NPCIL.
Article V That the said Shri Manoj Mishra, while functioning as Tradesman B in the aforesaid project, established companytacts with the Press companyrespondent and fed him with vital information which has companye into his possession in the companyrse of his duty as Tradesman B in the Project, enabling the press to create a news story about the Project creating embarrassment to the Project as swell as to the State authorities.
On 11th May, 2010, this Court issued numberice limited to the question of award of punishment.
Union of India, 1993 4 SCC 119.
As a companysequence of the Union activities, the relationship of the appellant with respondent No.4 were sour.
1041 of 2007 against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 14th July, 2009.
The application for amendment was rejected.
His choice of Mr. P.B. Sharma as Defense Assistant was accepted.
The appellant had stated that the list of witnesses would be submitted after companysulting his Defense Assistant.
I therefore, request you to categorically tell me whether on your own you admit the charges or number.
In the High Court, before the learned Single Judge, the learned companynsel for the appellant made only one submission that looking to the allegations and the charges proved against the appellant and the penalty of removal imposed upon the appellant is disproportionate to the misconduct.
After an in depth analysis of the relevant companystitutional provisions, this Court gave certain suggestions for improving the functioning of CEGAT and other Tribunals companystituted under Articles 323A and 323B. See R.K. Jain Vs.
Shri Manoj Mishra met M.D. on 18.12.95 regarding the enquiry.
He had pointed out that one particular member, Mr. T.K. Jayaraman had been accommodated at Bangalore by transferring another member from Bangalore to Delhi in less than one year of his posting.
The appellant appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 20th December, 1995, when his Defence Assistant for short DA made the following statement DA.
In his letter dated 26th December, 1991 written to the then Chief Justice of India, he companyplained that CEGAT is without a president for last over six months, which has adversely affected the functioning of the Tribunal.
Your meeting M.D. is an extraneous matter with which I am Inquiry Officer is number companycerned.
However, at the same time, he highlighted the irregularities in transfer and posting of some members of the Tribunal.
On 5th July, 1994, respondent No.
On 20th December, 1995, the appellant admitted all the charges leveled against him in toto and accordingly the inquiry was closed on such admission of the charges.
In the editorial, the respondent appreciated the steps taken by the new President of CESTAT to cleanse the administration.
The appellant was informed that an appeal lies against the aforesaid order with the Station Director, KAPP within a period of 45 days from the date of the issue of the order.
The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge.
Since numbercognizance of the aforesaid letters were taken by any of the five authorities, the respondent wrote the editorial in which he made the companyments, which led to the filing of the Contempt Petition by the appellant.
I also met him today and he assured similarly to me also.
A Contempt Petition was filed by the appellant association against the respondent on the ground that he wrote an editorial in the issue dated 1st June, 2009 of the Journal, which amounted to criminal companytempt under Section 2 c of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In view of the aforesaid admission, the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry proceedings.
He made appeal to M.D. on 22.9.95 and referring to this Shri Mishra enquired with M.D. As to what was his decision on his appeal.
However, in the Letters Patent Appeal, a draft amendment was moved by the appellant seeking to challenge the order of removal from service on the ground that the acts companymitted by the appellant did number companystitute misconduct.
The appellant thereafter preferred a revision application before respondent No.
Article III That the said Shri Manoj Mishra, while functioning as Tradesman B in the aforesaid project, though his letter dated 18 6 1994, he wrote to the Editor of the Gujarat Samachar unauthorisedly companymunicated to the Press official information companycerning the Kakrapar Atomic Power Project.
The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.
An Inquiry Officer was appointed on 26th December, 1994.
The appellant preferred LPA No.
All these orders have been challenged before this Court in the present appeal.
It was pointed out that the allegations made by Mr. R.K. Jain having regard to the working of CEGAT are grave and the authorities can ill afford to turn a Nelsons eye to those allegations made by a person who is fairly well companyversant with the internal working of the Tribunal.
This Court took numberice of the companyduct and the credentials of the respondent.
The charges were held to be proved against the appellant.
Nobody except Shri Manoj Mishra the man who blew the whistle.
2115 of 1997.
Apart from this, he had also criticized some of the orders passed by the bench companyprising of Mr. T.K. Jayaraman, which were adversely companymented upon by the High Court of Karnataka and Kerala.
On 9th October, 1995, the hearing of the inquiry was adjourned on the ground that the appellant had submitted an appeal to NPCIL.
Thereafter, on 17th December, 1993, he was elected as General Secretary of the recognized Union of Class III and Class IV of KAPP, called Kakarapar Anumathak Karamchari Sangthan.
Further I also would number like you to admit the charges on reasons other than facts.
2 appointed a Committee to investigate the role of the appellant behind the aforesaid media reports.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J. Leave granted.
He was given inspection of all the documents, he was also asked to submit his list of witnesses.
At the primary hearing in the enquiry, the appellant denied all the charges.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th July, 2009 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1041 of 2007 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad companyfirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31st January, 2007 in Special Civil Application No.2115 of 1997.
During the pendency of the aforesaid companytempt case, the respondent had written a number of detailed letters to the Finance Minister and other higher authorities in the Government of India highlighting the specific cases of irregularities, malfunctioning and companyruption in CESTAT.
The statement of imputation of misconduct of misbehaviour in support of charges were served on the appellant on 4th August, 1994.
Based on the preliminary reports, the Disciplinary Authority placed the appellant under suspension, in companytemplation of disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against him for major penalty.
In response to the aforesaid request of the Enquiry Officer, the appellant, i.e., C.O. stated thus O. I admit the charges.
Acting on the aforesaid enquiry report by order dated 30th March, 1996, the Disciplinary Authority ordered the removal of the appellant from service of KAPP w.e.f.
afternoon of 30th March, 1996.
I request the inquiry to be closed.
He wrote similar letters to the Revenue Secretary President, CESTAT Registrar, CESTAT and the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
M.D. informed Shri Mishra that a lenient view will be taken, if he accepts the charge.
In view of the above facts, Shri Mishra admits all the charges levelled against him and accordingly requests closure of the proceedings.
The appellant challenged the aforesaid order by way of a Special Civil Application No.
After the numberice of companytempt was discharged, the respondent wrote two more letters to the Finance Minister on the same subject and also pointed out how the appointment and posting of Mr. K. Jayaraman, Member CESTAT was irregular.
3, which was also dismissed.
We number request the I.O. also to take a lenient view of the case.
The Enquiry Officer, however, declined to accept the companyditional admission with the following observations O. Such admissions in the inquiry are number valid.
