$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.2950/2014 & CM Nos.6136-6137/2014
Date of Decision: 12th May, 2014
R K NAFRIA ..... PETITIONER
Through : Mr.M.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
with Mr.Pulkit Sharma, Adv.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
Through : Mr.Saqib, Adv. with Ms.Shalini Aggarwal, Adv.
for UOI CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) CM No.6137/2014
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
WP (C) No.2950/2014 & CM No.6136/2014
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22nd April, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, rejecting OA No.4559 of 2013. It appears that the respondent-CPWD issued a memorandum dated 22nd November, 2013 calling upon the petitioner to explain the reasons of certain lapses ranging from 2006 onwards. The petitioner's several requests to the respondents seeking copies of the documents to enable WP (C) No.2950/2014 Page 1 of 5 him to submit a reply to the said memorandum was not acceded to by the respondents. The respondents' claimed before the Tribunal that the petitioner was permitted inspection of the record on 24 th December, 2014 and that he had seen the record. It was submitted that in terms of the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commissioner at the stage of conducting a preliminary inquiry, the respondents are not required to make available to the employee concerned, any documents at that stage. In view thereof, the respondents had complied with the requirements of law inasmuch as at that stage the matter was under consideration as a preliminary inquiry alone.
3. The Tribunal accepted this submission of the respondent and in view of the fact that the memorandum dated 22 nd November, 2013 was not in the nature of a charge memorandum issued under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 rejected the petitioner's contention for copies of the documents.
4. Mr.M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through para 4.4 (g) of the guidelines by the Central Vigilance Commission which reads as follows:-
"4.4 (g) - During the course of preliminary enquiry, the public servant concerned may be given an opportunity to say what he may have to say about the allegations against him to find out if he is in a position to give any satisfactory information or explanation. In the absence WP (C) No.2950/2014 Page 2 of 5 of such an explanation, the public servant concerned is of such an explanation, the public servant concerned is likely to be proceeded against unjustifiably. It is, therefore, desirable that the investigating officer tries to obtain the suspect officers' version of "facts" and why an inquiry should not be held. There is no question of making available to him any document at this stage. Such an opportunity however may not be given in cases in which a decision to institute departmental proceedings is to be taken without any loss of time; e.g. in a case in which the public servant concerned is due to retire or to superannuate soon and it is necessary to issue a charge-sheet to him before his retirement."
5. It is also not disputed before us that the matter is at the stage of preliminary consideration. In view of the above guideline, the petitioner's request for copies of documents to enable him to respond to the memorandum dated 22nd November, 2013 is not tenable and the order of the Tribunal rejecting the same cannot be faulted. The petitioner has made a grievance that the action against him is grossly belated and mala fide being on the eve of his superannuation on 31st May, 2014. We are not required to examine this contention of the petitioner in this petition. However, the respondents have accepted the position that the petitioner was entitled to the inspection of the record. The counter affidavit is bereft of the documents which were made available to the petitioner in the inspection on 24th December, 2013. Details of the documents which were made available to the petitioner are not forthcoming.
6. The petitioner has contended that the proposals which are the WP (C) No.2950/2014 Page 3 of 5 subject matter of the memorandum dated 22nd November, 2013 were approved by the competent authorities. The record relating to the processing of the contracts with regard to which allegations have been made, are certainly relevant inasmuch as the memorandum dated 22nd November, 2013 makes a detailed reference thereto. Therefore, without interfering with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, we deem it to be in the interest of justice to grant the petitioner one meaningful and real opportunity to inspect the record.
7. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to make available the complete record which is relating to the transactions referred in the memo dated 22nd November, 2013 to the petitioner for which purpose, he shall appear before the Executive Engineer (Vigilance) of the respondents on 19th May, 2013 at 11.00 a.m. The complete record shall be made available to the petitioner and he shall be permitted to inspect the record. The petitioner shall be permitted to take notes in his inspection. In case the petitioner requires any specific documents to be made available for inspection, he shall inform the authority concerned in writing for the same. In case the inspection is not completed on the same date, the same may be conducted on the following days or any other day and time mutually convenient to the petitioner and the authority. The inspection shall be completed within one week of the commencement. The petitioner may submit his reply to the memorandum within one week WP (C) No.2950/2014 Page 4 of 5 thereafter.
The writ petition and application are disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti.
(GITA MITTAL) JUDGE (DEEPA SHARMA) JUDGE MAY 12, 2014 aa WP (C) No.2950/2014 Page 5 of 5