Dr. Sudhir Kumar Ranga vs Union Of India & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 5405 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                             Reserved On : 16.12.2009

%                                       Date of Decision : 23.12.2009


+ RP No. 7484/2002 IN WP (C) No. 3127/2002 & CM No. 403/2007

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR RANGA ...     ...    ...     ...     ...APPELLANT
                   Through : None for the Petitioner.


                              -VERSUS-


UNION OF INDIA & ORS.    ...    ...      ...     ...   RESPONDENTS
                    Through : Mr. Gopal Subramaniam,
                              Solicitor General with
                              Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC for
                              UOI / R - 1.
                              Mr. Maninder Singh,
                              Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae)
                              with Mr. T. Singhdev and
                              Mr. Abrar Mohd. Abdullah,
                              Advocates.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

1.        Whether the Reporters of local papers
          may be allowed to see the judgment?           Yes

2.        To be referred to Reporter or not?            Yes

3.        Whether the judgment should be                Yes
          reported in the Digest?


SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed as a Registrar of the Debt

Recovery Tribunal ( for short, „DRT‟ ). He moved the

present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India seeking dual relief - (a) permanent absorption of

the petitioner as Registrar; and (b) quashing of the letter

dated 18.04.2002 whereby the Presiding Officer, DRT - II

withdrew the powers of the petitioner. The writ petition

was disposed of on the first day itself, i.e., 17.05.2002.

The application was filed by the Presiding Officer, DRT

seeking review / recall of the Order dated 17.05.2002 on

account of misrepresentations by the petitioners. Notice

was issued in the said application. It is at that stage it

came to light that the very eligibility of the petitioner to

be appointed to the post was in question as the

appointment was made on fraudulent

misrepresentations. The case was referred to Central

Bureau of Investigation ( for short, „CBI‟ ).

2. The CBI was asked to file progress report of the

investigation since the matter involved the appointment

to a quasi-judicial post. It was found that some part of

the records were destroyed, which included the

application filed by the petitioner and other candidates.

Even this destruction was found to be contrary to the

Manual of Destruction of Documents. The matter was

referred to be inquired into by the Officer of sufficient

seniority.

3. The CBI on investigation filed a charge-sheet. The

charge-sheet itself stated that the appointment letter

issued to the petitioner had been fraudulently obtained.

The charge-sheet was initially silent on the issue of

collusion of any Officer from the Department or the

manner as to how appointment letter was issued

wrongly to the petitioner.

4. The enquiry report was produced before this Court in

respect of destruction of records. The conclusion of the

enquiry was that the destruction of records had taken

place contrary to the administrative instructions. No

finding was reached about the culpability of the

concerned Officers though it was observed that

apparently it was a case of negligence. The enquiry

report was directed to be implemented in terms of the

Order dated 28.05.2004 except on the issue of

culpability which matter was referred to the CBI to hold

an enquiry. This was more so on account of the past

history of the petitioner. The petitioner applied in the

first process of selection for appointment as a Registrar

to the DRT and the petitioner was selected for a posting

at Nagpur, but did not join. In the second process of

selection, the petitioner had been found not eligible to

be appointed whereafter the first process apparently was

revitalised on the letter of the petitioner seeking

appointment in Delhi instead of Nagpur and the

petitioner was posted to Delhi.

5. In so far as the complicity of any Officer was concerned,

the CBI did not find a criminal culpability, but

recommended departmental action. The initial stand of

the respondents in affidavit was that the selection was a

consequence of inadvertence and oversight on the part

of the Selection Committee in "not having recorded

reasons for selecting a candidate against whom ineligible

was written". No mala fide or extraneous factor was

found. The Officers were cautioned to be more careful in

future. This endeavour was, however, found by the

Court as only a cover up operation to save the

delinquent Officers. The advertisement itself provided

for no relaxation and yet no reasons had been recorded

why an ineligible person was selected. This Court

directed the matter to be placed before the Secretary

(Finance) of the Union of India. The Secretary, Revenue

dealt with the matter and requested the Secretary,

Department of Personnel to nominate a senior Additional

Secretary level Officer to enquire into the matter. It also

came to light as recorded in the Order dated 06.10.2006

that one of the delinquent Officers, in the meantime, was

posted as Minister (Economics), Embassy of India in

Washington. Thus, the delinquent Officer was rewarded!

This Court found it appropriate to direct that this matter

should be brought to the notice of the Cabinet Secretary.

6. An Inter-Ministerial Committee looked into the matter

and submitted a report dated 30.10.2006. A conclusion

was reached that formal disciplinary proceedings against

the concerned Officers under the relevant rules need to

be conducted and punishment as deem fit be awarded

as oral warning given to the delinquent Officers cannot

be deemed to be any punishment for the glaring lapses

committed by them. This was in consonance with the

report of the CBI taken note of, which in turn had

recorded that serious administrative lapses on the part

of the Committee and that such glaring lapses be

brought to the notice of the Government as turning a

blind-eye to such incident shall further allow nefarious

characters like the petitioner herein to hold the authority

of the Government to ransom. This Court wanted to

know the action proposed to be taken by the

Government on the recommendations and the Cabinet

Secretary was to look into the matter. It is only after

about 10 months that an affidavit was filed by the

respondents in terms whereof it was proposed only to

take corrective action in future with no action against

the concerned Officers. Thus, the original records were

called in the matter and Mr. Maninder Singh, Amicus

Curiae assisting the Court, was asked to look into the

records.

7. It is during the course of hearing thereafter that the

learned Solicitor General came into the picture and

sought some time for the whole matter to be placed at

the highest echelons of the Government for appropriate

decision to be taken.

8. Amicus Curiae on the basis of the records has given

valuable assistance to this Court. It has been rightly

pointed out that the charge-sheet filed by the CBI itself

states that the appointment letter issued to the

petitioner had been fraudulently obtained and not that

the appointment letter is fabricated. The CBI in its report

had also stated serious administrative lapse and

negligence and recommended departmental action

against the three Members of the Selection Committee.

It may be noticed that out of the three Members of the

Selection Committee, only Mr. Anoop Mishra and Mr. D.K.

Tyagi remained in service as Mr. Suman had retired. It

was on continued directions of the Court that initially

Inter-Ministerial Committee had been appointed, which

reached a conclusion that formal disciplinary

proceedings against the concerned Officers under the

relevant rules need to be conducted and punishment as

deemed fit be awarded. This Committee took note of the

fact that the words „Not eligible' had been written

against the name of the petitioner and despite this fact,

the Selection Committee had not recorded the reasons

for recommending appointment of a non-eligible person.

Thus, it constituted a serious administrative lapse on the

part of the Selection Committee.

9. The records show that on the report of the Inter-

Ministerial Committee, the matter was referred to

Central Vigilance Commission ( for short, „CVC‟ ) for

consultation to decide on whether major or minor

penalty proceedings were required to be initiated against

the two Officers in service and seek recommendation of

the CVC on what action could be taken for omissions /

commissions on part of the Officer who had since retired.

The CVC gave an advice note dated 22.02.2007 for a

regular departmental enquiry for major penalty against

Mr. Dinesh Tyagi and Mr. Anoop Mishra. Accordingly, the

then Finance Minister examined the matter exhaustively

and took a decision for action on 09.04.2007.

Surprisingly, a note thereafter appeared of the Joint

Secretary in the Ministry to the effect that adequate

opportunity was not given to the concerned Officers and

the CVC was asked to reconsider the matter. The CVC

changed its advice and the matter without being put to

the Finance Minister, was straightaway sent for

acceptance to the Hon‟ble Prime Minister. An interesting

aspect, which emerges, is that the defence of Mr. Anoop

Mishra was that the petitioner was ineligible because the

application from him was received late and this is what

has weighed in the second opinion of the CVC. However,

the broad-sheet relating to the list of candidates show

that there were other Officers whose applications were

received late and yet the words „Not eligible‟ were never

written against their name. On the contrary, the words

„Not eligible‟ were written in the broad-sheet against

another candidate because he was ineligible as he was

neither an Advocate nor a Government employee.

10. In my considered view, it is obvious from the way the

notings have been made that such an endorsement of

„Not eligible‟ has been made where the requisite

qualifications are not possessed and not for delayed

applications in all other cases, yet the stand taken by the

officers is that it is only in the case of the petitioner that

the words „Not eligible‟ connoted application received

beyond time.

11. The decision of the then Finance Minister also finds that

the Selection Committee was negligent in its job and,

thus, had passed an order for stern warning against the

two concerned Officers and that the written stern

warnings should be placed in their service records. The

petitioner had neither mentioned his basic-scale nor his

basic-pay nor experience in his application and obviously

it was on that account that his application was

categorised as „Not eligible‟ and yet he was the person

selected by the Selection Committee for the post.

12. The action decided by the then Finance Minister and the

CVC in terms whereof the Members of the Selection

Committee have been found to be negligent resulting in

serious lapse was, however, sought to be given a go-bye

by asking for a second set of reply by these Officers. As

to what was the occasion for the same, one fails to

understand! It is then that the whole thing has

proceeded on the premise of „Not eligible‟ being a noting

on account of late application and the second opinion of

the CVC endorsed it.

13. The records do show that the learned Solicitor General

did put forth the complete case at the highest level, but

all that has happened is that the final opinion, which

emerges, is on the premise that while taking the earlier

decision, the decision of the then Finance Minister was

taken note of.

14. It is trite to say that this Court is not the disciplinary

authority. The matter has gone so far only because a

fraudulent appointment to a quasi-judicial post was

sought to be made and it was considered appropriate

that necessary action should not only be taken against

the petitioner, but responsibility fixed for the same. The

prodding did result in the Inter-Ministerial Committee

report, the recommendation of the then Finance Minister

and of the CVC indicting the concerned Officers and for

departmental proceedings on account of serious lapses.

However, all this has been washed away on account of

another explanation called for and accepted, which is not

palatable. I do feel that it is for the Administration to

remedy and put its house in order so that such lapses do

not occur and it would have been appropriate to take the

matter to the logical conclusion administratively. But

that is not to be.

15. There are no further directions, which can really be

passed on the judicial side.

16. The application stands disposed of.

CM No. 403/2007

17. The application has been filed seeking exemption from

payment of costs imposed vide Order dated 06.10.2006.

The costs were imposed as though an affidavit was

expected to be filed within a period of two months, it had

taken the Government more than two and a half months

even to appoint the concerned Officer. I am of the view

that no directions are called for on this application.

18. Dismissed.

DECEMBER 23, 2009                           SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
madan