Mr. P.N.Malhotra vs Union Of India & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 5717 Del

*		IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+				W.P.(C)  No. 324/1989


%						   		15th December, 2010





MR. P.N.MALHOTRA                                                 ...... Petitioner


Through:	Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocates 

							





				VERSUS








UNION OF INDIA & ORS					.... Respondents

					Through: 	Mr. Anuj Aggarwal 							and Mr. Gaurav 								Khanna, Advocates for 							the R-1.

							Mr. Yeeshu Jain, 								Advocates for R-2 and 							R-3.





CORAM:


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA





Whether the Reporters of local papers may be


	 allowed to see the  judgment?							


 To be referred to the Reporter or not?	





3.	Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) 

1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the inquiry report dated 18.9.1987 whereby the Inquiry Officer found that five out of six charges stand established against the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the consequent order of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment upon the petitioner whereby the petitioner was reduced in rank to the lower post of Upper Division Clerk and was barred for consideration for a higher post for a minimum period of three years.

2. The relevant Article of Charges, the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner are dealt with in seriatum hereafter.

3. The first Charge pertained to the petitioner making a baseless complaint against his immediate senior one Sh. R.K.Gupta that the said R.K.Gupta was a corrupt man not attending to his duties. For this purpose, the petitioner sought to contend that with respect to certain procurements, Sh. R.K.Gupta was indulging in corruption. This Article of Charge has been dealt with by the Inquiry Officer as under:-

"Normally, the onus to prove the charge should lie with the Institute but in this particular case since the allegations were made by Shri P.N. Malhotra, I consider that it should be the responsibility of Shri P.N. Malhotra to substantiate the allegation made by him against Shri R.K. Gupta. Shri P.N. Malhotra failed to counter the statement mis-conduct or mis-behaviour provided by the Institute in support of this article of this charge. He has failed to produce any evidence/document to prove his allegation against Shri R.K. Gupta. On the other hand, the statement of Shri S.N. Girotra- Shri R.K. Gupta has been working under me since I joined, I did not find any occasion/opportunity to doubt the integrity of Shri Gupta is a person of integrity. Further, I being the person of Administration has to accept the statement of the Institute in support of this article of charge-keeping in view the full proof purchase procedure it was highly improbable that Audit Section would have checked S/orders on the basis of tempered quotation/tenders are attested by the members of the tender/quotation opening Committees. It is, therefore, evident that the charges were not based on material evidence but were simply raised with the sole purpose to malign the integrity and reputation of Shri Gupta- We have standard check procedure to avoid any manipulation in the tenders etc. I, therefore, come to the decision that article of charge I is proved."

I do not find any perversity or violation of the principles of natural justice in this finding. On behalf of the petitioner, it was sought to be contended that he was not allowed inspection of certain files and these files were not produced before the Inquiry Officer which would have enabled the petitioner to establish the charge of corruption against Mr. R.K.Gupta. When I put a query to the counsel for the petitioner that whether any application was filed before the Inquiry Officer to summon a particular file or any letter was written to any department of the respondent no.2, that a particular file is needed for cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent no.2 and also whether such files were needed in the evidence to be led by the petitioner, nothing has been shown by the counsel for the petitioner of having filed any such application or written any such letter with respect to the files to be given to the petitioner by the department for cross-examination of the witnesses of the department or requirement of those files for his positive evidence. The findings on this Charge therefore calls for no interference.

4. The next Article of Charge pertained to the petitioner not handing over the files and other records of his seat to Sh. D.N.Sherawat causing delay and compliance of the urgent time bound work. In this regard, the relevant finding of the Inquiry Officer reads as under:-

"The statement of Shri R.K. Gupta-After a year, the services of Shri P.N. Malhotra was surrendered and he was asked to give the charge to Shri D.N. Sehrawat, which he did not hand over. R.E. (Elect.) also sent letter to him at his residence address requesting Sh. Malhotra to hand over the charge. Since he failed to hand over the charge the matter was reported to the Institute. The Institute issued a formal order to Shri Malhotra to hand over the charge. After he had failed to hand over the charge, Institute constituted a committee comprising of (1) R.E. (Elect.), (2) Audit Officer (3) Security Officer to break open the almirah. Inventory of the documents recovered from the almirah was prepared by the committee and handed over to Sh. D.N. Sehrawat. It was observed, from the documents recovered from the almirah that there were about 75 cases which were lying pending. - AND the statement of Shri S.N. Girotra, R.E. (Elect.)-when Shri D.N.Sehrawat joined the Works section Shri Malhotra did not properly hand over the charge to him at all. Resulting in the delay of purchase cases and ultimately the work suffered. Shri P.N. Malhotra has asked for leave which was refused to him. He was asked to first hand over the charge to Sh. D.N. Sehrawat. Thereafter Mr. Malhotra did not turn up on duty inspite of the message sent at his residence. The matter was further reported to the Institute for further necessary action. During his absence he did not hand over the charge to anyone. There were a few cases of extra ordinary delay during his time resulting in the delay in the procurement. -gives definite impression that Shri Malhotra deliberately did not hand over the office early and absenting from duty till 15th Feb, 85 further strengthens the issu of deliberate attempt on his part for not handing over the charge. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to show his any inability for not handing over the charge. The article of charge II is proved beyond doubt."

Once again, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings. It appears that the petitioner himself was not a whistle blower, which he claimed to be, but in fact was himself responsible for delay in procurement, for reasons best known to him. The findings of the Inquiry Officer clearly show that the petitioner did not handover the charge to Mr. D.N.Sherawat and absented from duty from 15.2.1985 without any leave being sanctioned to him.

5. The third Charge against the petitioner was that of being on unauthorized absence i.e. without having a sanctioned leave from 11.2.1985 to 15.2.1985. The Inquiry Officer records, and which is a fact appearing on record, that there is no document filed by the petitioner that leave was sanctioned for the relevant period. Clearly, therefore, finding against this charge is justified.

6. The fourth Charge against the petitioner was keeping of urgent files in his almirah and not handing over its key. In this regard, the following finding has been given by the Inquiry Officer.

"While evaluating the evidence under article of Charge II, it stands established that he was given charge by each individual at the time of his joining the Works Section. Moreover, he stayed in the section for about a year. In case he was not handing over any particular charge, he could definitely bring out the same to the notice of the Office Supdt./R.E.(Elect.). It is unbelievable that he continued to work in the section without taking over the charge from the concerned staff. As brought out by the Institute in the statement in support of article of charge IV that Sh. P.N. Malhotra in August 84 reported the loss of key of his almirah to Supdt. and he was provided duplicate key held by the Supdt. The important files could be dealt with, only after break-opening the almirah by a committee. This obviously, had hampered the smooth functioning of the section. In view of the above, I find that the article of charge IV stipulated against to Sh. P.N. Malhotra stands proved."

Once again, nothing has been pointed out by the petitioner to shake this categorical finding. The Inquiry Officer was justified in arriving at a finding that it is inconceivable that the petitioner will work in a section for a year without taking over charge from the concerned staff. In fact duplicate key of the almirah was provided on the request of the petitioner but even then he failed to handover the files, and consequently, the almirah had to be broken open after a committee was constituted. This default thus resulted in hampering of the smooth functioning of the office and thus the finding against this Charge calls for no interference.

7. The Article V of the Charge was not proved and need not be looked into by me.

8. The last Charge against the petitioner was, of his remaining absent without a sanctioned leave and refusing to submit a leave application for casual leave and on the contrary tampering with the attendance register. The relevant findings of the Inquiry Officer are as under:-

"The evidence of Shri R.K. Gupta- He was in the habit of absenting from the seat for hours together. At times he had gone on leave without prior intimation. Whenever I asked him to give application for his absenting period, he normally did not give. On 17-1-85, 29-1-85 and 5-2-85 he was absent in the FN or AN. Accordingly, he was marked ½ day C/L by me. I requested him to submit the leave application for these dated. He did not give any application instead tempered with the attendance register which I am presenting to the Inquiry Officer. - and the statement of Shri Girotra- I remember a case which was put up to me by Supdt. (Works) when Shri Malhotra had refused to give leave application after rejoining-leads me to believe that he did refuse to submit leave application for his absence. The documentary proof establishes that he had hampered with the attendance register. Therefore, the article of Charge VI stands proved."

Once again, the findings are not such which cannot be interfered with by this court under Article 226.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Dev Singh Vs. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation and Anr. (2003) 8 SCC 9 to contend that two penalties cannot be imposed and the same results in double jeopardy. In my opinion, this case does not at all deal with the issue argued because this case deals with the issue of disproportionate punishment and in the facts of the present case it cannot be said that the punishment is unduly harsh.

10. The court while hearing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot reappraise the findings of facts of the Inquiry Officer unless such findings are perverse. I have already reproduced the relevant findings of the Inquiry Officer and clearly the findings are not perverse. I have already noted that the petitioner is not a whistle blower but in fact he was himself guilty of various acts of omissions and commissions which have been rightly found against him by the Inquiry Officer and accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner did not appear before the Disciplinary Authority in spite of having been granted time and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority accordingly passed the order dated 18.9.1987 imposing punishment and duly recording that even after opportunities, no representation was filed by the petitioner.

11. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

DECEMBER 15, 2010					VALMIKI J. MEHTA,J

ib