* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 301/2011
Decided on 4.3.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
D K SRIVASTAVA ..... Petitioner
Through : Petitioner in person.
versus
UOI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through : Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Advocate
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner who is a Law Officer working for HUDCO at Jaipur, Rajasthan, praying inter alia for directions to respondent No.1, Ministry of Housing & Urban Development, and respondent No.2, Central Vigilance Commission, for contemplating disciplinary proceedings for major penalties against respondents No.5 to 11, who are officers holding the post of Managing Director, Executive Directors, etc., in respondent No.4/HUDCO, for their alleged criminal misconducts in fabricating a charge sheet dated 12.10.2010 issued to the petitioner, for an inquiry to be held against him on the basis of the articles of charge enclosed W.P.(CRL) 301/2011 Page 1 of 4 with the said charge sheet. The petitioner also seeks directions to respondents No.1 & 2 to call upon respondent No.3/CBI to take appropriate action against respondents No.5 to 11 under Sections 204/218/120B IPC for preparation of an incorrect charge sheet dated 12.10.2010 and for fabricating order dated 10.2.2011, which is an order passed by the Chairman & Managing Director of respondent No.4/HUDCO, appointing a Presenting Officer to conduct an inquiry against the petitioner on the basis of the charges framed against him.
2. A perusal of the order dated 10.2.2011 reveals that respondent No.4/HUDCO has appointed a Presenting Officer to conduct an inquiry on the charges framed against the petitioner. It is stated that the inquiry is being held at the Bhopal Regional Office of respondent No.4.
3. On inquiry as to the status of the domestic inquiry initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the Memorandum dated 12.10.2010 (Annexure Petitioner-14), it is stated by the petitioner that he has filed a reply to the articles of charge framed against him and thereafter the inquiry is continuing against him under the HUDCO Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules 1976.
4. The petitioner, who appears in person, states that in the year 2009, he had lodged FIR No.318/2009 at Jaipur City (South), Rajasthan, against respondents No.4 to 11 on the same grounds as alleged in the petition, which was closed by the Jaipur Police by filing a final report dated 8.4.2010, stating inter alia, that the offences made out were civil in nature. Admittedly, no protest petition was filed by the petitioner before the appropriate court challenging the aforesaid final report. The petitioner W.P.(CRL) 301/2011 Page 2 of 4 states that he did not file a protest petition as the Final Report stated that the offences made out were civil in nature. It may be observed that merely because the final report mentioned that the offences were civil in nature, did not legally disentitle the petitioner from filing a protest petition before the appropriate court in the State of Rajasthan. However, the petitioner has not invoked the legal remedy which was available to him in law.
5. The petitioner further states that though he had written to respondent No.2/CVC complaining against respondents No.4 to 11 in the year 2008, the said Department has not taken any action on the said complaint. He draws the attention of this Court to the letter dated 22.2.2011 received from respondent No.2/CVC, wherein it is stated that the recommendation report has yet to be received on the complaint filed by the petitioner.
6. The present petition appears to be more an attempt on the part of the petitioner to try and delay the disciplinary inquiry proceedings initiated against him. If it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 has taken some action against him which is contrary to law, he shall be entitled to assail the same at the end of the enquiry proceedings before the appropriate forum. Given the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner by invoking the extraordinary powers vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence the relief as sought by the petitioner is declined.
7. As far as the complaint of the petitioner with regard to the lack of action on the part of respondent No.2/CVC on the complaint lodged by the petitioner is concerned, the present petition is disposed of with directions to W.P.(CRL) 301/2011 Page 3 of 4 respondent No.2/CVC to take appropriate action in respect of the pending complaint lodged by the petitioner and intimate to him the outcome thereof as expeditiously as possible.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to respondent No.2/CVC for information and compliance.
(HIMA KOHLI)
MARCH 04, 2011 JUDGE
sk
W.P.(CRL) 301/2011 Page 4 of 4