Jai Prakash Narain vs Delhi High Court & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 1858 Del

*             HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                      Judgment delivered on: April 9th 2010


+                    W.P.(C) 10451/2009


JAI PRAKASH NARAIN                                 ..... Petitioner


                          -versus-


DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS                      ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner        :Mr Mahavir Singh, Sr Advocate
                          with Mr Arjun Mitra, Advocate

For the Respondent:        Mr Viraj.R. Datar, Advocate


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL


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

2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?


Veena Birbal, J.

1. Petitioner was selected in Delhi Judicial Service on 2nd

November, 1992 and was assigned judicial work in May, 1993.

Since then, petitioner is performing his duties as a Judicial

Officer. On 13th December, 2006, petitioner was served with a

„Memorandum of Charges‟ levelling allegations of misconduct

against him. The same is reproduced as under:-

" ARTICLE-I

1. Sh. J.P. Narain, Member of Delhi Judicial Service, during his functioning as a Judicial Officer indulged in purchase of following properties in the benami name of his wife and his father-in-law which is disproportionate to his known sources of income.

       a)     Plot no. 650, Sector 23 & 23A, Gurgaon.

       b)     Property No. C-8/8233, Ground Floor, Vasant
              Kunj, New Delhi.
       c)     Plot of land measuring 1 bigha bearing old
              Khasra No. 3 Min. and New Khasra No. 79 &
              80 situated in extended Lal Dora Abadi,
              Village Kapashera, New Delhi.

       d)     Property no. C-21, 2nd Floor, Rear Portion,
              Hauz Khas, New Delhi.



                         ARTICLE-II

       2.    Sh. Jai Prakash Narain, Member of Delhi

Judicial Service alongwith his wife, Smt. Parveen Kumari and his father-in-law Sh. Kishan Chand Sehrawat moved an application dated 27.10.1997 for obtaining Home Loan of Rs.6 Lacs from HDFC Bank, Capital Court, Munirka, New Delhi for construction of one plot no. 650, Sector-23-23A, Gurgaon, without seeking permission from his employer, Delhi High Court. Sh. Jai Prakash Narain, Member of Delhi Judicial Service gave a declaration about pay and loan dated 27.10.1997. A loan of Rs. 5 Lacs was sanctioned in Loan A/c no. 503842.

ARTICLE-III

3. Sh. Jai Prakash Narin, Member of Delhi Judicial Service passed orders in case FIR No. 111/94 u/s 420/406/120B IPC PS Preet Vihar, complaint case no. 254/01 PS Preet Vihar filed by M/s Alaknanda Properties Pvt. Ltd., FIR No. 546/01 u/s 505(1)(2) IPC PS Shakar Pur, FIR No. 193/2000 u/s 420/120B PS Preet Vihar titled as „State Vs. Bhim Sain Sapra‟, FIR No. 807/98 u/s 420/468/471/343/308/506/384/386 IPC PS Preet Vihar titled as „State Vs. Ramesh Sharma‟, after receiving bribe/extraneous consideration.

ARTICLE-IV

4. Sh. Jai Prakash Narain, member of Delhi Judicial Service in connivance with his wife Smt. Parveen Kumari, his father in law Sh. Kishan Chand Sehrawat and his brother in law Sh. Manoj Sehrawat, grabbed the plot measuring about 600 sq. yds. in Vasant Kunj, worth Rs. 3.5 Crores (approx.) belonging to Smt. Rajwanti widow of Sh. Saroopa by forging the documents. Sh. Jai Prakash Narain also pressurized Smt. Rajwanti by keeping her at a distant place near Bahadurgarh in the house of his father in law, Sh. Kishan Chand Sehrawat and forced her to sign the Compromise Deed in respect of the said plot by showing payment of Rs. 5 Lakhs in cash. Sh. J.P. Narain also managed to send Sh. Jaidev, a relative of Smt. Rajwanti to jail for 56 days, and pressurized Smt. Rajwanti to withdraw Criminal Writ Petition No. 1302/2004 filed by her.

The conduct of Sh. J.P. Narain, Member of Delhi Judicial Service, is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. By his aforesaid acts of commission and omission, Mr. Jai Prakash Narain, Judicial Officer, has acted in contravention of the provisions contained in Delhi Judicial Services Rules read with CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 including Rule 3, Rule 18 and / or Canons of Judicial Ethics contained in Chapter I, Vol. IV of High Court Rules and Orders.

In case the aforesaid charges are substantiated, Sh. J.P. Narain, Member of Delhi Judicial Service, would be held guilty of grave mis- conduct, unbecoming of a Judicial Officer rendering him liable to disciplinary action under CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965."

Petitioner replied to the same denying the charges alleged

against him.

2. Initially, Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen was appointed as an

Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges levelled against

the petitioner. On 19th May, 2008 the petitioner received a

letter dated 17.05.2008 from respondent no.1 wherein he was

informed that Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen had recused himself

from the inquiry. On 4th July, 2008, petitioner was informed that

another Judge of this Court i.e. respondent no.3, has been

appointed as an Inquiring Authority. It is stated that since then

inquiry proceedings are being conducted against him by the

respondent no.3. Petitioner has alleged bias and prejudice on

the part of the Inquiring Authority i.e. respondent no.3.

Petitioner has alleged that he also made a representation dated

27th February, 2009 before the Disciplinary

Authority/respondent no.2 for change of Inquiring Authority

and in the meanwhile for stay of inquiry proceedings. Petitioner

also filed a review/supplementary petition dated 2nd March,

2009 before respondent no.2. Vide letter dated 26th March,

2009, petitioner was informed that his representation and

review/supplementary petition have been rejected by

respondent no.2. Thereafter petitioner made recusal application

to Inquiring Authority i.e. respondent no.3 requesting him to

recuse himself from the inquiry. Vide orders dated 01.05.2009

the same has also been rejected by respondent no.3/Inquiring

Authority.

3. The case of the petitioner is that after the recusal of the

previous Inquiring Authority, inquiry is being conducted in a

hasty manner without following the principles of natural justice

and Statutory Rules. Some of the purported instances of

bias/prejudice alleged by the petitioner against respondent no.

3/Inquiring Authority are stated herein. It is alleged that

Ms.Anjali Bhardwaj (MW-1) is the material witness of

establishment. Her examination-in-chief has been accepted in

the form of an affidavit by the earlier Inquiring Authority. It is

alleged that on 16th September, 2008, while cross-examining

MW-1, petitioner wanted to put two complaints made in the

name of S.K.Tyagi and S.K.Agnihotri to the aforesaid witness

MW-1. But Inquiring Authority/respondent no. 3 disallowed the

same by saying that these complaints be put to the witnesses

when they would be called whereas the stand of petitioner is

that MW1 is the author of aforesaid complaints and S.K. Tyagi

and S.K. Agnihotri are non-existing persons. It is alleged that

petitioner has been denied the basic right of cross-examination.

It is further alleged that on 16.09.2008, petitioner also wanted

to impeach the credit of the said witness i.e MW 1 by

contradicting her with her previous complaints but respondent

no.3 disallowed the same by saying that the same can be read at

the time of arguments. It is alleged that request of petitioner

made in this regard and same being not allowed is not recorded

in the inquiring record. On 17.09.2008 during cross-

examination of MW-1, the petitioner moved an application for

supply of copy of statement of MW-1 dated 19.12.2002 and

21.12.2002 as the petitioner wanted to confront the said witness

with the previous statement. However, the said application was

disallowed. It is further alleged that deliberate effort is being

made by the respondent No.3 to prevent the petitioner from

conducting an effective cross-examination of MW-1.

It is alleged that on 18.09.2008, the Inquiring Authority/

respondent No.3 passed oral orders to summon witnesses,

namely, Mr. Ramesh Kumar and Mr. Chander Pal of his own

accord. Further, Mr. Gian and Mrs. Bhaggo were also

summoned by the Inquiring Authority without there being any

request from the side of Establishment. It is alleged that the

respondent No.3 also summoned some documents during the

inquiry proceedings despite the fact that same were not relied

upon by the establishment/respondent no.1.

It is alleged that on 3.12.2008 at the time of the recording

of evidence of Sh. Ram Prakash MW-8, initially questions were

put to him by Presenting Officer of respondent no.1 but

subsequently Inquiring Authority started putting questions to

him. Examination of witness MW-8 continued on 04.12.2008

wherein the witness was confused by the constant questioning

of Inquiring Authority and thus refused to answer any further

questions. The Inquiring Authority ordered closure of the

evidence and thereafter the witness started leaving the room.

Due to constant questioning by the Inquiring Authority the

witness sought adjournment and the matter was adjourned to

13.01.2009. It is stated that the said sequence of events is not

mentioned in the record as to why the witness walked out of the

room and how he was brought back. The petitioner moved an

application for correction of the records. Reply was also filed by

respondent no.1 to the said application which is evasive and

establishes the averments made by petitioner. The petitioner is

not being supplied with the copy of the application filed by MW-

8 and is not even allowed to inspect the inquiry records despite

the fact that the application demanding the copy of said

application and inspection are on an inquiry file. The petitioner

is, therefore, being prevented from defending himself

effectively. It is alleged that the complainants Mr.Jai Dev and

Smt. Rajvanti have already withdrawn their complaints during

the fact finding enquiry and Inquiring Authority is presuming

them to be innocent.

Further case of petitioner is that on 19.02.2009 inquiry

proceedings were held in the court room. Some police officials

and staff members were sitting there to which the petitioner

objected but the Inquiring Authority continued proceedings in

the court room. The police officials were asked to leave the

room only after a strong protest was made by the petitioner. It

is alleged that on the said date, during the examination of

witness MW-9, her grand-daughter who was also present started

speaking from behind. The petitioner raised an objection to her

presence which was over-ruled by the Inquiring Authority.

Rather the Inquiring Authority construed it as obstructing the

proceedings and it was also recorded in the proceedings that

the petitioner was obstructing the proceedings. As the

Inquiring Authority was not prepared to hear his objection,

petitioner requested for an adjournment which was not allowed.

The petitioner left the inquiry after taking leave of the Inquiring

Authority. However, the request of the petitioner to defer the

cross-examination was not acceded to and the lawyer of the

petitioner was insisted to complete the cross-examination in the

absence of the petitioner. It is alleged that respondent No.3 is

inclined to build a prejudicial record against the petitioner. The

petitioner moved an application dated 20.02.2009 before the

Inquiring Authority for recalling the witnesses MW-9 to 11,

whose evidence had been recorded in the absence of the

petitioner in the manner stated above and also for inspection of

the inquiry file and supply of the copy of application and

affidavit filed by MW-8. Both the applications were rejected

vide order dated 27.02.2009.

Considering the above, petitioner filed a representation

dated 27.02.2009 and a subsequent representation dated

02.03.2009 before the respondent no.2, seeking the change of

Inquiring Authority. On 26.03.2009, the petitioner came to

know that same have been rejected by the Disciplinary

Authority. Petitioner also moved a recusal application dated

19.03.2009 before the Inquiring Authority requesting him to

recuse himself from the inquiry. Vide order dated 01.05.2009

the said application has also been rejected. Aggrieved with the

same, the present petition is filed.

4. In response to above petition, counter affidavit is filed on

behalf of respondent no.1 wherein by way of preliminary

objection it is stated that the relief claimed by the petitioner is

contrary to settled law. It is stated that petitioner wants to

derail and delay the enquiry as he is apprehending that the facts

emerging in the enquiry are detrimental to him. It is further

stated that all the departmental witnesses have been examined

and the enquiry is at the stage of examination of petitioner‟s

witnesses and the relief sought by the petitioner ought to be

denied at this belated stage. Further, the petitioner has made

false allegations of bias against respondent no.3/Inquiring

Authority. It is further stated that petitioner has already made a

representation to respondent no.2 dated 27.02.2009 and a

review petition dated 02.03.2009 for change of Inquiring

Authority. The same has been duly considered and rejected by

the Full Court of this court, which is the Disciplinary Authority,

being devoid of merits vide resolution dated 26.03.2009. It is

stated that respondent no. 3 has also rejected the application of

petitioner seeking his recusal from the enquiry vide order dated

01.05.2009, which is as under: -

"This application has been made by the delinquent official seeking recusal of the Enquiry Officer from the enquiry being conducted against him. On similar grounds, the delinquent official had made a prayer to the Chief Justice for transfer of enquiry from present Enquiry Officer. All allegations as stated in the application were considered by the Hon‟ble the Chief Justice and the request was declined. The various allegations made by the delinquent official in the application alleging bias etc. are absolutely false, I find no reason to entertain the application and to recuse myself from enquiry. The application is dismissed."

5. On merits the allegation of bias against the Inquiring

Authority/respondent no. 3 are denied. It is denied that inquiry

is being conducted in an illegal manner violating the principles

of natural justice and fair play as alleged. The stand of the

respondent is that the enquiry is being conducted in a legal

manner following the principles of natural justice and fair play.

6. As regards the cross-examination of Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj

(MW1), it is stated that the petitioner had cross-examined the

said witness from 16.09.2008 to 18.09.2008. It was a very

lengthy cross-examination. Full opportunity was given to

petitioner by respondent no. 3 to cross-examine the said

witness. At the time of cross-examination, petitioner did not

make any attempt to put the two complaints made by Sh. S.K.

Tyagi and Sh. S.K. Agnihotri to MW1 which as per the petitioner

are pseudonymous complaints and the real author is MW1. The

copies of aforesaid two complaints were already given to the

petitioner by the establishment/respondent no.1. The allegation

that a full opportunity was not given to him to cross-examine

MW1 or that he wanted to put the alleged pseudonymous

complaints have been made for the first time on 13.01.2009. It

is stated that the said application is an after-thought to fill up

the loop holes. It is stated that on 17.09.2008, petitioner had

moved an application stating that he wanted the statement of

MW1 dated 19th and 21st December, 2002. It is stated that said

request was rightly disallowed by Inquiring Authority as

inspection of relevant file wherein these statements were

recorded had already been allowed to petitioner by the earlier

Inquiring Authority. It is further stated that as per petitioner

he wanted the said statements only to show that the name of the

father of the husband of MW 1 as stated in the present

proceedings was at variance as compared to her earlier

statements dated 19th December and 21st December, 2002

before the Registrar (Vigilance) of this court. It is alleged that

in any event, no prejudice has been caused to petitioner as

petitioner can point out at the time of arguments.

About the summoning of Sh. Ramesh Kumar and Sh.

Chander Pal, it is stated that they were summoned for

29.09.2008. No objection was raised with regard to their

summoning by the petitioner and both are the witnesses from

the Bank. Sh. Ramesh Kumar is a Branch Head of J & K Bank,

Faridabad, Haryana while Sh. Chander Pal is an officer of ICICI

Bank. Both were effectively cross-examined by the petitioner.

At a belated stage, the petitioner cannot allege bias. It is stated

that petitioner is also not disputing the power of the Inquiring

Authority to call for documents. That being the position, there

is no illegality in summoning the documents as are referred in

para VIII of the petition and the objective of summoning those

documents was to establish the truth. Petitioner never took any

such objection for summoning of these documents. Had he got

any objection, he should have raised the same there and then.

It is stated that in a similar way, Mr. Gyan and Ms. Bhago were

summoned as their presence was necessary for establishing the

truth and it does not amount to establishing bias of Inquiry

Officer so as to prejudice the interest of the petitioner.

It is stated that the Inquiry Officer had put some questions

to the witness Sh. Ram Prakash (MW-8) at the time of recording

his evidence. The said witness was cross-examined by

petitioner. No such objection was taken by the petitioner who is

a Judicial Officer regarding putting questions to the witness by

the Inquiring Authority at the relevant time. It is submitted that

there is no bar that Inquiring Authority cannot put questions to

the witnesses. There is no violation of the procedure as is

alleged. By putting questions, it does not reflect any bias of the

Inquiry Officer as is alleged.

7. As far as the allegations of holding the enquiry

proceedings in the court room on 19.02.2009 are concerned, the

stand of respondent is that on the said date, three witnesses

were present and it was not possible to accommodate all in the

Chamber of the Hon‟ble Judge, as such, the inquiry proceedings

were held in the court room. It is stated that two police officers

were present as a part of police security provided to witness

Smt. Rajwanti at her request pursuant to order passed by the

Inquiring Authority on 17.02.2009. The said police officers left

the court room on an objection being raised by petitioner. It is

alleged that on the said date, petitioner had behaved rudely in

the court room and had also left the court room by stating that

the cross-examination of the witnesses will be conducted by his

Advocate. Thereafter, the proceedings continued and the

witnesses were examined by the Presenting Officer and cross-

examined by the Advocate of the petitioner.

8. The allegations about interference by the grand-daughter

of MW9 in the inquiry proceedings are denied. It is alleged that

on the said date, petitioner was obstructing the proceedings by

speaking in a loud voice. On being objected by respondent no.

3/Inquiring Authority, petitioner left the room and his lawyer

conducted the cross-examination of witnesses without raising

any objection. It is alleged that petitioner had left the

proceedings of his own volition. An application dated

20.02.2009 was moved by the petitioner before the respondent

no. 3/Inquiring Authority for recalling the witnesses MW9 to

MW11. The same was rejected vide order dated 27.02.2009.

Complete cross-examination was done by the lawyer of

petitioner and the purpose of recalling was only to plug the loop

holes. It is further stated that the representation dated

27.02.2009 and Review Petition dated 02.03.2009 filed before

Appellate Authority have already been rejected by the

respondent no. 2, i.e. Appellate Authority which has been

communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.03.2009. It

is stated that none of the CCS/CCA Rules have been violated by

the Inquiring Authority or the Appellate Authority as is alleged.

It is stated that enquiry is being conducted in a fair manner and

in accordance with the rules. No ground is made out to

interfere in the matter and petition is liable to be rejected.

9. Rejoinder has been filed denying the allegations made in

the counter affidavit against the petitioner and has reiterated

the stand taken in the petition.

10. The contention raised by the learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner is that alleged instances of

biasness, unfair procedures and prejudice as stated in the

petition, i.e., by not allowing effective cross-examination of

MW1, non-supply of earlier statements of MW-1, summoning

witnesses/documents of its own by the Inquiring Authority and

other alleged instances establishes that the inquiry is being

conducted in an illegal manner without following the principles

of natural justice, as such request is made in the petition for

change of Inquiring Authority be allowed.

11. On the other hand, the stand of respondent no.1 is that

the establishment/respondent no.1 has examined all its

witnesses. The establishment closed its evidence on

19.02.2009. Petitioner has already examined 7 witnesses. In

all, 38 hearings have taken place before the respondent no. 3.

On 04.07.2008, Inquiring Authority/respondent no.3 took the

enquiry proceedings. Application for change of Inquiring

Authority on the allegations as are alleged in the present

petition have already been rejected on the administrative side

by the Full Court which was communicated to petitioner vide

letter dated 26.03.2009. On 19.03.2009, another application in

this regard was filed before the respondent no. 3/Inquiring

Authority which was rejected on 01.05.2009. On 03.07.2009,

present petition is filed. It is stated that when the effort of

petitioner to stall the inquiry proceedings failed, petitioner filed

the present petition making false allegations against the

Inquiring Authority. It is contended that the sole motive of the

petitioner is to derail the enquiry proceedings. It is stated that

none of the grounds stated in the petition have been made out.

It is further contended that in any event, inquiry report is yet to

be submitted and no action has been taken in the present

matter by the Disciplinary Authority, as such present petition is

premature.

12. We have considered the submissions made.

13. Memorandum dated 13.12.2006 enclosing Article of

Charges was issued to the petitioner on 13.12.2006. As per the

Article of Charges, there are serious allegations of misconduct

against petitioner, during his functioning as a Judicial Officer.

Reply has already been filed by the petitioner denying the

charges levelled against him. It is an admitted position that

Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen was earlier appointed as

Inquiring Authority. Thereafter, on recusal by the said Inquiring

Authority, respondent no.3 was appointed as an Inquiring

Authority vide letter/order dated 4th July, 2008. It is also an

admitted position that the evidence of the establishment has

been closed on 19.02.2009. Thereafter, evidence of petitioner

started and seven witnesses have been examined.

14. The main allegations of the petitioner against the

Inquiring Authority/respondent no.3 are that he has not allowed

the petitioner to effectively cross-examine MW-1. The other

allegations are that some of the witnesses/documents, the

details of which are given in the preceding paras have been

summoned by the Inquiring Authority of his own due to which

petitioner has been prejudiced. His other allegations are that

on 19th February, 2009, the inquiry proceedings were conducted

in the court room and some police officials were also there

which is against the principles of law. The other allegation that

his request for recalling MW 9 to 11 has been declined by the

Inquiring Authority. His further allegations are that

evidence/proceedings are not being correctly recorded due to

which prejudice is being caused to him.

15. To rebut the allegations of petitioner, counter affidavit is

filed by respondent no.1 wherein it is stated that cross-

examination of MW-1 was recorded on 16th to 17th February,

2009 and the allegation that petitioner is prevented from

effective cross examination is being made after a lapse of three

and a half months. There is no denial to the same by the

petitioner. As regards the allegations that Inquiring Authority

has summoned Ramesh Chand Pal, Mr.Gyan and Mrs.Bhago on

his own, the stand of respondent no.1 is that there is no bar that

the Inquiring Authority cannot on his own summon the

witnesses, if, the same are relevant witnesses and their

presence is necessary to bring about truth. Further, no such

objection of summoning documents/witnesses have been taken

by the petitioner when the same were summoned. It has also

come in the counter affidavit of the respondent no.1 that

petitioner has effectively cross examined all the aforesaid

witnesses and no such objection was taken at that time. Even if

some questions were put to the said witnesses as is alleged in

the present petition, there is no bar in law that the Inquiring

Authority cannot put questions to the witnesses. Further, it is

not the stand of petitioner that aforesaid witnesses were not

relevant witnesses. As regards non supply of statement of

Anjali Bhardwaj recorded on 19and 21st December, 2002, it is

the admitted position that vide orders dated 6th November,

2007, the earlier Inquiring Authority had allowed inspection of

the said file wherein said statements were recorded. As per the

application dated 17th September, 2008, petitioner has stated

that MW-1 has stated in the inquiry proceedings that she is wife

of Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma son of Shri R.S.Sharma. In her

earlier statement dated 19.12.2002 and 21.12.2002, she has

stated before the Registrar (Vigilance) that she is the wife of

Vinod Kumar Sharma son of Shri Dev Dutt Sharma as such said

statements were required for contradicting the witness. We do

not think that any prejudice is being caused to the petitioner as

is alleged. Petitioner can point out the alleged contradiction at

the time of arguments.

16. About holding of the inquiring proceedings in the court

room, the stand of respondent no.1 in its counter affidavit is

that on that day three witnesses were present and it was not

possible to accommodate them in the chamber of Inquiring

Authority, as such inquiry proceedings were held in the court

room. As regards the presence of police officials on that day is

concerned, in the reply it is stated that one of the witnesses

namely Rajwati who was present on that day was provided

police security and pursuant to the orders of Inquiring Authority

on 17th February,2009, all the police officials were allowed to

leave the court room when the same was objected and no public

person was present in the court. In view of the above

explanation, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been

caused to the petitioner in having the proceedings in the court

room. Further, it is not the stand of the petitioner that

members of public were present in the court room.

17. In view of above, we are of the view that prima facie

allegations of bias/prejudice being caused to petitioner or that

the principles of natural justice have not been followed, are not

made out. As noted above, evidence of

Establishment/respondent no.1 is already over. Examination of

petitioner‟s witnesses is being carried out. Petitioner is

represented through a lawyer and the inquiry proceedings are

in midstream. Merits/demerits of the inquiry cannot be gone

into at this stage. The inquiry report is yet to be submitted. It

is for the Disciplinary Authority which is the Full Court in this

case to accept the findings given in the inquiry report or not.

Disciplinary Authority has its own discretion in the matter. It

may or may not accept or partly accept the inquiry report. The

ultimate decision has to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority

as has been held in UOI Vs. H.C.Goel: AIR 1964 SC 364. It

is also well settled that if the report is submitted against the

delinquent and the Disciplinary Authority is tentatively in

agreement with the Inquiring Authority, the delinquent has

every right to make representation against the said report as

has been held in the Managing Director, ECI v. K

Karunakaran : AIR 1994 1074.

18. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel for

the respondent that present petition is premature at this stage.

Reference in this regard is made to the following judgments of

the Supreme Court as well as of this Court:-

In Chanan Singh Vs. Registrar, Coop. Societies,

Punjab & Ors: AIR 1976 SC 1821 wherein writ petition was

filed challenging the revival of disciplinary proceedings on the

ground that same was illegal and opposed to natural justice. In

the said case, Supreme Court held as under:-

"The writ petition was in any case premature. No punitive action has yet been taken. It is difficult to state, apart from speculation, what the outcome of the proceedings will be. In case the appellant is punished, it is certainly open to him to either to file an appeal as provided in the relevant rules or to take other action that he may be advised to resort to. It is not for us, at the moment, to consider whether a writ petition will lie or whether an industrial dispute should be raised or whether an appeal to the Competent Authority under the rules is the proper remedy, although these are issues which merit serious consideration.

Even the question of jurisdiction to re-open what is claimed to be a closed enquiry will, and must, be considered by the Managing Director."

Relying on the aforesaid judgment, a Division Bench of

this court in Jagmal Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation :

59 (1995) DLT 604, held as under:-

"The Courts are averse to the idea of intercepting legal and departmental proceedings way between and at interlocutory stages. This is for several reasons. An efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner by taking all the pleas during the proceedings themselves and there is no reason to apprehend why the authorities vested by law with the jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings and take decisions therein would not act in accordance with law. Interference by the Courts stalls the progress of the proceedings and by the time the petition comes to be decided, may be against the petitioner, the proceedings would have been unreasonably and irreparably delayed. May be that much of the

evidence is already lost by the time the hearing in the proceedings would come to be resumed. Several officers associated with the case may have left the place on account of transfers or promotions or may not even be available as having retired. It is only in those rare cases where the impugned proceedings are patently incompetent or without jurisdiction and where the Court is convinced that continuance of such proceedings would amount to an illegality or an abuse of the process of law by itself, that the Court may show indulgence in exercise of its writ jurisdiction at interlocutory stage of departmental proceedings."

The observations in Inder Raj Singh v. Delhi Transport

Corporation & Anr (CW 3346/1992), decided on 15.1.1993 are

also relevant and the same are in the following terms:-

"When departmental proceedings have been initiated, it is desirable that they should be allowed to be continued and the proceedings must culminate in an order before recourse is taken to a Court of law. It is open to an officer who is being proceeded with to raise all contentions not been initiated validly and any contention raised by the employee concerned will have to be considered and decided by the Enquiry Officer and/or by the Disciplinary Authority in any case. The grievance of the petitioner can only be if and when an adverse order imposing a penalty is passed against him. It is not proper that department proceedings should be interfered with prior to an order being passed by the Disciplinary Authority."

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that present petition is

premature and is an attempt to delay the inquiry proceedings.

In any view of the matter, it is not a fit case for interference

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petition stands dismissed. Nothing stated herein

shall have any bearing in the proceedings going on before

Inquiring Authority.

Veena Birbal, J.

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

April 9th 2010 ssb