1 aswp-4714-11 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4714 OF 2011 Mithilesh Kumar Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.A. Sawant for petitioner. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DECEMBER 01, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Savant, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner impugns the decision dated 4/5/2011, by which O.A. No. 507 of 2007 has been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. 2 aswp-4714-11 3. The petitioner was initially appointed on 16/8/1994 as High Skilled worker and he was issued a charge-sheet on 31/3/2004. The charges levelled against him were, (a) He was having breakfast during the working hours; (b) He misbehaved and disobeyed the willful orders of his superior Lt. Rohit Sharma, and (c) He was not wearing the working overall while on duty which was in contravention of Para B, Article 0532 of Dockyard Standing Orders, 2001. He submitted his reply on 15/4/2004 and, therefore, a departmental enquiry was ordered as per the order dated 31/5/2004. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 15/9/2004 holding that all the three charges were proved and recommended the penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum of pay scale for a period of three years. The findings were accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and as per the order dated 4/1/2005, he was awarded the penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum of pay scale for a period of three years with the proviso that petitioner would not earn increments during the period of reduction. 4. Departmental Appeals filed against the said order of 3 aswp-4714-11 punishment failed and, therefore, he finally approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 507 of 2007. In the departmental appeals as well as before the Tribunal the only ground on which the order of punishment was challenged was the failure of the enquiry officer to supply copies of charge-sheets and other documents in Hindi and to conduct the enquiry proceedings in Hindi. The Tribunal was not impressed by these grounds to hold that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was vitiated and the principles of natural justice were violated. The Tribunal noted that on the earlier occasion the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet, which was in English, the enquiry was conducted in English, the enquiry officer submitted his report in English and he was awarded punishment. The petitioner did not protest, raising a ground that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated as they were not either conducted in Hindi or the documents relied upon were not supplied to him with Hindi translation. It is for the first time, he took the plea before the enquiry officer that the documents were required to be given to him with Hindi translation. The enquiry officer by his letter dated 24/7/2004 addressed to the petitioner, stated that the enquiry proceedings would be held in Hindi and the proceedings of the enquiry would be complied in English. He advised the petitioner to attend the enquiry at the scheduled date and time. However, the petitioner insisted that every communication addressed to him either by the deparment or the enquiry officer ought to be in Hindi and he abstained from the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry, therefore, proceeded ex parte. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer were supplied to the petitioner. He was issued a second show cause notice. It is under these circumstances, the Tribunal, for the reasons stated in para 12 of the impugned order rejected the petitioner’s allegations that the 4 aswp-4714-11 enquiry was vitiated as principles of natural justice were violated. Para 12 reads as under:- “12. It is seen that the applicant had not denied the misconduct which was alleged to have been committed by him as contained in Article I, II and III of the charge memorandum dated 31.3.2004. The applicant has not taken part in the enquiry proceedings inspite of the fact that the Enquiry Officer had informed him that the inquiry proceedings would be conducted in Hindi but the enquiry report would be compiled in English. Therefore, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice have not been followed in the present case. The applicant ought to have participated in the enquiry and defended himself against the charges levelled in charge memo dated 31.3.2004 but he deliberately chose not to participate in the enquiry proceedings. The applicant had insisted upon serving a charge-sheet in Hindi although it has been alleged by the respondents, that in an enquiry conducted against him in the past, the charge-sheet was served on him in English and proceedings were conducted in English. At that time he had not taken the plea of being conversant only in Hindi and seeking for a copy of the charge-sheet to be supplied in Hindi and proceedings to be conducted in Hindi as in the present case. It was also alleged that the applicant is a literate and has done Graduation in B.A. and has filled in his form as well as nomination forms etc. in English. Therefore, the enquiry 5 aswp-4714-11 proceedings cannot be vitiated on this ground alone. We are, therefore, convinced that violation of principles of natural justice, as alleged by the applicant, on account of the non- issuance of the charge-sheet in Hindi, could not be established.” 5. We have considered the arguments advanced by Mr. Savant, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the record speaks for itself, which indicated that the petitioner holds a qualification of B.A., he submitted his nomination form in English and all along he had accepted the official correspondence in English language. There is nothing to show that he did not understand English documents and the record further reveals that departmental proceedings held against him earlier were in English. There was no reason for him to abstain from the enquiry when the enquiry officer had specifically informed him that the enquiry proceedings would be conducted in Hindi. We are, therefore, satisfied that the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be held to be erroneous so as to call for interference in the same under our powers of judicial review. The Tribunal was right in holding that the enquiry was not vitiated. 6. Hence, the petition is rejected. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.) 6 aswp-4714-11