Delhi High Court
J.S. Bhatia vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003 IVAD Delhi 403, 104 (2003) DLT 489, 2003 (70) DRJ 568, 2003 (3) SLJ 473 Delhi
Author: S Mahajan
Bench: S Mahajan
JUDGMENT
S.K. Mahajan, J.
Rule.
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.
2. The petitioner was working as a Senior Inspecting Engineers (RITES). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and an inquiry under the relevant Rules was held. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 4.11.1999 holding that the charges against the petitioner were not proved.
3. On receipt of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the same and directed further inquiry to be held on the basis of the charge sheet issued to the petitioner. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the holding of the de novo inquiry on the grounds as contained in paragraph 57 of the writ petition and has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.4.2001, whereby the Disciplinary Authority had directed fresh inquiry to be held from the initial stage and for setting aside and quashing the appointment of the new Inquiry Officer. The petitioner has also prayed for passing of the final orders on the inquiry report and the petitioner's representation/response dated 12.4.1999. This representation/ response was by way of reply to the show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority on receipt of the earlier inquiry report. From the file, however, I am not able to find this representation dated 12.4.1999, nor the petitioner has been able to show me any representation which is dated 12.4.1999. A perusal of the entire petition shows that the only grievance of the petitioner was holding of the de novo inquiry and he had prayed for quashing the same.
4. The respondents have now by office orders dated 20.8.2002 and 2.9.2002 dropped the proceedings which were initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 17.4.2001 and have accepted the earlier report given by the Inquiry Officer. It has been observed in the order that consequent upon finalisation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner which resulted in his exoneration and he having been found fit for promotion as Deputy CIE (Mechanical), he was promoted to the said post on notional basis on 28.9.1999, i.e. the date on which his junior Dinesh Kumar Bisht in the panel was promoted. It was further observed in the order that his salary in the promotion grade will be charged from the date of the order i.e. 2.9.2002.
5. Since the only grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was about the holding of the de novo inquiry, in my opinion, with the dropping of the fresh proceedings and by promoting the petitioner, nothing survives in the petition. In case the petitioner is aggrieved of the order of not being paid his salary from the date his junior was promoted till the date of the issue of the office order dated 2.9.2002, he is at liberty to move appropriate Forum for the same. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
