The Secretary & Ors vs Sh.P.K.Subash
2010 Latest Caselaw 127 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                              W.P. (C.) No.146/2010

%                           Date of Decision: 12.01.2010

The Secretary & Ors                                        .... Petitioners
                            Through Mr.V.K.Rao   and   Mr.Karan Maini,
                                    Advocates.

                                    Versus

Sh.P.K.Subash                                   .... Respondent
           Through        Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

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 challenged the order dated 3rd June, 2009

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi titled Sh.P.K.Subash v. Union of India and Ors allowing the

petition of respondent and setting aside the minor penalty order dated

7th December, 2007 and order dated 30th May, 2008 and thus granting

all consequential benefits to the respondent including promotion and

arrears of pay.

The respondent while working as a Deputy Director (programme),

DDK was served with a minor penalty charge memorandum dated 3rd

April, 2003 alleging that he failed to scrutinize the proposal made by

the programme executive for coverage of programme "Chahal Pahal" as

per guidelines and recommended the same to the Director for approval,

leading to financial loss to the petitioners. The charges against the

respondent had pertained to the period 1999-2000.

Though the charges pertained to the period 1999-2000 and were

promptly replied by the respondent, according to him the petitioners

had belatedly sought the opinion of the Union Public Service

Commission on 11th October, 2007 and thereafter passed the order

dated 7th December, 2007 imposing a minor penalty. The revision filed

by the respondent was also declined by order dated 30th May, 2008. The

respondent challenged the memorandum of minor penalty inter-alia on

the ground of inordinate delay of 3-4 years in issuing the minor penalty

chargesheet and another 3-4 years in finalizing the whole matter. The

respondent also contended that the guidelines relied on by the

petitioners are generally applicable to news bulletins and not to

programmed related to social and cultural events and, therefore, it

could not be alleged that his act had resulted into violation of

mandatory guidelines. The respondent had also challenged the

memorandum of minor penalty on the ground that the proposal was

initiated by the programme executive after scrutinizing the various

aspects involved in it and he had only forwarded and recommended to

the Director who was overall incharge of the scrutiny. Though the

Director was overall incharge of the scrutiny and responsible for taking

the decision, the respondent contended that he has been let off without

any punishment. He also contended that it was not his sole

responsibility and relied on the Doordarshan‟s manual in support of

his plea.

The Tribunal has relied on, after consideration of the facts and

circumstances, delay of about 7-8 years in imposing the minor

punishment and lack of any cogent explanation from the petitioners

about the delay. The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to give

any sufficient reasons which will entitle the petitioners for condonation

of delay. The Tribunal has noted that UPSC gave its advice by letter

dated 11th October, 2007, however, this was pursuant to the letter of

the petitioners dated 12th January, 2007. Since the incident is of 1999-

2000, why the opinion/advice was sought in January, 2007 almost

after 7 years has not been explained by the petitioners nor any reasons

has been given.

The Tribunal has also noted that CVC guidelines provided two

months period for minor penalty proceedings from the date of issue of

charge memorandum and receipt of its reply. The learned counsel for

the petitioners has failed to give any explanation for inordinate delay of

48 months to conclude the minor penalty proceedings in compliance

with CVC guidelines.

In the circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal to set aside the

orders of the petitioners for minor penalties on account of inordinate

delay which has remained unexplained cannot be faulted in the facts

and circumstances.

The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is without any

merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

JANUARY 12, 2010                                MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
„k‟