Therefore, in the matter of Sri Vijay Shankar Pandey IAS 1979, the Honble Governor, after rejecting the enquiry report of Enquiry Officer, Sri Jagan Mathews, companystitute in his place a 2 member Inquiry Board under sub rule 3 of Rule 8 of All India Service Discipline Appeal Rules, 1969, companyprising of Sri Alok Ranjan, Agricultural Production Commissioner, Govt.
On the same day 26.9.2012, an order hereinafter referred to as the IMPUGNED Order invoking Rule 8 3 of the All India Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1969 hereinafter referred to as DISCIPLINE Rules came to be passed by the State of U.P. rejecting the Enquiry Report dated 30.8.2012 referred to supra .
of U.P. in order to enquire into the charsges imposed against him.
The relevant portion of the order reads as under Enquiry Officer Sri Jagan Mathews sent the enquiry report vide his letter dated 30.08.2012.
This companyduct of yours is companytrary to Rule 3 of the All India Service Conduct Rules 1968 and you have violated the aforesaid rule.
of India and others filed before the Honble Supreme Court, by way of an additional affidavit filed by the petitioners which also includes , officers of the Enforcement Directorate of Government of India were criticized, whereas as per Rule 8 of the All India Service Conduct Rules 1968, members of the All India Service are number allowed to depose in any enquiry wherein the Central or the State government may be criticized.
The appellant is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service.
The case of the appellant was companysidered and the decision was kept in a sealed companyer.
of India and others filed before the Honble Supreme Court, numberpermission of the State Government was sought for filing the additional affidavit which was filed by the petitioners which also includes you , whereas members of the All India Service are number allowed to give any such information without prior permission of either the Central or the State Government which brings disregard to the Central or the State Government.
As there was numberresponse to the representation, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal on 26.9.2012 once again in A.No.381 of 2012 with prayer as follows a to issue an order or direction companymanding the respondents to take a final decision on the enquiry report which has already been submitted by the enquiry officer b to issue an order or direction companymanding the respondents open the sealed companyer of the recommendations of the selection companymittee and to forthwith issue promotion orders in respect of the applicant Such other orders as this Tribunal may deem just, fit and proper be also passed in the interest of justice.
Charge No.5 In Writ Petition No.37 Civil /2010 Julio F. Ribero and Others v. Govt.
As such you failed to observe Rule 17 of the All India Service Conduct Rules, 1968.
The second respondent rejected the report of the Enquiry Officer on two grounds that the Enquiry Officer submitted a cursory report without observing the mandate of Rules 8 15 , 8 16 , 8 20 and 8 24 of the DISCIPLINE Rules and failed to properly investigate the facts.
This companyduct of yours is companytrary to Rule 3 of the All India Service Conduct Rules 1968 and you have violated the aforesaid rule.
Charge No.1 is on account of certain statements made in the said Writ Petition against certain senior officers of the Government of India.
Charge No.2 Before becoming member of the institution named India Rejuvenation Initiative, you did number inform the government, whereas as per Rule 13 of the All India Service Conduct Rules1968 information is to be given within one month of becoming a member.
The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal became final.
The background facts of this case are that a Writ Petition C No.37 of 2010 titled Julio F. Ribero and others vs. Govt.
Therefore the Enquiry Officer has failed to properly investigate the facts in the enquiry proceedings.
of India including the appellant herein, came to be filed under the name and style of India Rejuvination Initiative, a number Government Organisation NGO .
In the aforementioned writ petition on behalf of the petitioners which also included you an additional affidavit has been filed by Sri Jasbeer Singh wherein para 4 of the allegations made by Sri S.K. Dubey against senior officers of the Enforcement Directorate in his letter to the Honble Prime Minister have been endorsed, which was number expected of you being a member of the All India Services.
After certain companyrespondence, the details of which are number necessary for the present purpose , the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer on 27.2.2012.
of India and others has been filed through India Rejuvenation Initiative, NGO before the Honble Supreme Court wherein you are also a petitioner.
This kind of your companyduct is against Rule 3 of the All India Service Conduct Rules 1968 and you are guilty for violating the aforesaid provision.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court but withdrew the same subsequently.
Charge No.3 In the writ petition No.37 Civil /2010 Julio F. Ribero and others v. Govt.
The companyy of the said report is number served on him.
The appellant submitted his reply on 5.3.2012.
The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.8.2012 exonerating the appellant of all the charges.
This companyduct of yours is companytrary to Rule 3 of the All India Service Conduct Rules, 1968 and you have violated the aforesaid rule.
The said Writ Petition along with another culminated in a judgment of this Court in Ram Jethmalani Others v. Union of India Others, 2011 8 SCC All the charges against the appellant are in companynection with the filing of the said Writ Petition on the ground that the companyduct of the petitioner is violative of the various CONDUCT Rules.
All the charges are to the effect that the companyduct of the appellant is companytrary to Rule 3, 7, 8 and 17 of The All India Services Conduct Rules, 1968 hereinafter called CONDUCT Rules .
Therefore, the second respondent ordered to companystitute a two member Inquiry Board to again enquire into the charges framed against the appellant.
By the impugned judgment dated 3.4.2014 the said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
of U.P. and Sri Anil Kumar Gupta, Infrastructure and Industrial Commissioner, Govt.
Charge No.4 In Writ Petition No.37 Civil /2010 Julio F. Ribero and Others v. Govt.
The second charge is that the appellant failed to companyply with the requirement of Rule 13 of the CONDUCT Rules whereunder he is obliged to give information to the respondent within one month of becoming a member of the such organization NGO .
On examining the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer at government level it was found that the Enquiry Officer had submitted a cursory report without observing the mandate of Rules 8 15 , 8 16 , 8 20 and 8 24 of All India Service Discipline Appeal Rules, 1969 as criticism has been leveled in the writ petiion of the Central Government filed through Sri Vijay Shankar Pandey before the Honble Supreme Court and as such it is a clear violation of Rule 3 1 , Rule 7, Rule 8 1 and Rule 17 of the All India Service Conduct Rules, 1968.
The later decision was challenged by the appellant herein in Writ Petition No.87 S B of 2014, in which the order under appeal herein hereinafter referred to as the Order under APPEAL came to be passed dismissing the writ petition.
Charge No.1 Writ Petition No.37 Civil /2010 Julio F. Ribero and Others v. Govt.
The appellant challenged the chargesheet before the Central Administrative Tribunal in A.No.623 of 2012 which was eventually dismissed on 29.8.2012.
On 9.9.2012, the meeting of a Selection Committee for companysidering the cases of officers of the Indian Administrative Service for promotion to the Super Time Scale II ASTS II was held.
as such you violated Rule 7 of the All India Service Conduct Rules 1968.
The unsuccessful petitioner in the Writ Petition No.87 S B /2014 on the file of the High companyrt of Allahabad is the appellant herein.
On 22.7.2011 he was served with a chargesheet companysisting of five charges.
The earlier O.A.No.381/2012 was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 16.4.2013 on the ground that it had become infructuous.
Charge No.5 is that the appellant violated Rule 173 of the CONDUCT Rules.
CHELAMESWAR, J. Leave granted.
of India and others filed by you before the Honble Supreme Court, by way of an additional affidavit filed by the petitioners which also included you , senior officers of the Government of India were criticized, whereas the members of the All India Service are prohibited from criticizing, in the media or in the press, the actions of both the Central as well as the State Government, either in their own or in another persons name.
The appellant, therefore, submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh on 11.9.2012 requesting that in view of exoneration by the Enquiry Officer, he be promoted to the Super Time Scale II ASTS II .
The appellant herein never disputed the fact that he was one of the petitioners in Writ Petition Civil No.37/2010 referred to supra number did he disown statements allegations made in the said writ petition.
The third and the fourth charges are based on the allegation made in the Writ Petition Civil No.37 of 2010.
Challenging the order dated 26.9.2012, the appellant again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an A.No.395/2012.
The substance of the charges is that those allegations tantamount to criticism of the action of the Central as well as State Governments and of giving evidence without the previous sanction of the government and, therefore, companytravention of Rules 71 and 82 respectively of the CONDUCT Rules.
The Enquiry Officer exonerated the appellant of all the charges.
This companyduct of yours is companytrary to Rule 3 of the All India Service Conduct Rules 1968 and you have violated the aforesaid rule.
O.A.No.395/2012 was also dismissed on 20.12.2013 with certain directions.
