Union Of India vs B.L.Sinha
2009 Latest Caselaw 5262 Del

M                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
*
+                        Writ Petition (Civil) No.11551/2009

%                              Date of Decision: 16.12.2009

Union of India                                                      .... Petitioner
                               Through Mr.H.K. Gangwani, Advocate

                                        Versus

B.L.Sinha                                                    .... Respondent
                               Through Mr.M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be                      YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                         NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in                     NO
       the Digest?



ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner has impugned the order dated 13th July, 2009 in

OA No.2277 of 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Principal Bench, New Delhi titled B.L. Sinha v. Union of India and

others allowing the respondent's petition and setting aside the major

penalty order of reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay by one

stage for one year with cumulative effect.

During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner was

directed to disclose about the sealed cover of the respondent. Pursuant

to said order dated 26th November, 2009, the learned counsel for the

petitioner has informed that the sealed cover of the respondent was

opened and the respondent has not been recommended for

departmental promotion.

The respondent was working as Joint Director (JD) in Grade - I

and dealing with the applications under Section 297 of the Companies

Act and penalty proceedings were initiated against him on a complaint

filed by one Chartered Accountant.

The allegations against the respondent were that while processing

the applications received under Section 297 of the Act, the respondent

had raised irrelevant queries not germane to the subject matter which

had resulted in delay of disposal of the applications. Two charges were

framed against the respondent and the charge for non-disposal of

application under Section 297 of the Companies Act as per the Citizen

Charter, was not pressed in the inquiry by the petitioner. The Tribunal

had yet considered the charge of non-disposal of application under

Section 297 of the Companies Act as per the Citizen Charter, as the

power to grant of approval under Section 297 (1) exclusively vested in

the Regional Director and could not be delegated by him and therefore

failure in disposal of an application which was within the exclusive

jurisdiction of the Regional Director, could not be imputed against the

respondent. The Tribunal also noted that though the charge was not

pressed, the imputation against the respondent was not that he did not

process the application. As it was not within his exclusive jurisdiction

to dispose of such applications, the charge was held to be mis-

conceived and vague. The Tribunal had also noted that the respondent

could not be held guilty of alleged misconduct on the part of his

superiors.

Regarding the charge of raising irrelevant queries, it has been

observed by the Tribunal that in the memorandum issued to the

respondent, no such irrelevant queries had been imputed in respect of

the companies except M/s. KPMG. The inquiry officer has also not held

respondent guilty of raising alleged irrelevant queries.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any of

the queries raised by the respondent which can be termed irrelevant. In

any case, the queries put up by the respondent had been approved by

the Regional Director. The fact that the queries put up by the

respondent were approved by the Regional Director has not been denied

by the learned counsel for the petitioner after taking instructions from

the petitioner's representative present in the court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to summary of

proceedings and contended that the respondent had demanded filing of

compounding application by Endurance System (India) Pvt. Ltd.

According to him the said company had replied that the application

seeking compounding of offences had already been filed by the said

company. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended

that in the circumstances the queries raised were irrelevant as there

had not been any violation of Section 297 by the said company and, in

any case, the application for compounding had been filed on behalf of

said company.

Learned counsel the respondent has pointed out that the plea on

behalf of the petitioner is ex facie false, as in reply to application under

Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 31th July, 2007, it has been

disclosed that the applications for compounding as alleged by the said

company were not filed. In the circumstances, the allegations against

the respondent for raising irrelevant queries are not made out and

consequently the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of

punishment imposing a penalty of reduction to lower stage in time scale

of pay by one stage for one year with cumulative effect cannot be faulted

in the facts and circumstances.

In our view, the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any

illegality or such error which will require interference by this Court in

exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

December 16, 2009                                       VIPIN SANGHI, J.
'Dev'