Delhi High Court
Const.Ram Kishan Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 March, 2010
Author: Gita Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.1656/2010 & CM No.3322/2010
Date of Decision: 10th March, 2010
CONST.RAM KISHAN YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Randhir Jain, Adv. with
Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Adv. &
Mr. Dhananjai, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. D.S. Mahendru, Adv. with
Mr. Jayendra, Adv. for Respondent
Nos.1 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the Judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? No
GITA MITTAL, J (Oral)
1. An order dated 13th June, 1998 dismissing the petitioner from service
after holding a disciplinary inquiry was set aside by this court by a judgment
dated 18th December, 2009 passed in WP (C) No.7140/2009 entitled Ram
Kishan Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors. The judgment of this court was
premised on the ground that the petitioner had not been served with
chargesheet even though the respondents had sent the same to him. While
disposing of the writ petition, by the judgment dated 18th December, 2009,
the court had directed as follows:-
"19. Noting that the taint in the action of the respondent is
of not serving the charge-sheet upon the petitioner, we
take on record the fact that in Court today, a photocopy of
the charge-sheet (to be treated as an original) has been
handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in turn has
handed over the same to the petitioner. Let the petitioner
respond within six weeks. We clarify that it would be open
to the Disciplinary Authority to nominate a fresh Enquiry
Officer who would hold an enquiry after notifying a date of
appearance to the petitioner.
21. Lest there be any confusion as to the address of the
petitioner, we note that future correspondence as desired
by the petitioner would be at the following address:-
"Constable Ram Kishan Yadav S/o Sh. Hari Singh
R/o Village Zahid Pur, P.O. Burthal, Tehsil Kosli,
Distt. Rewari (Haryana).
22. In what manner the period between the date when
service of the petitioner were terminated and till enquiry is
conducted should be treated for purposes of service
record, would be decided by the Competent Authority."
2. Pursuant to the directions made by this court, the respondents have
permitted the petitioner to join service on the 3rd February, 2010. In addition
thereto, the respondents have issued an order bearing no.P-VIII-S/97-EC-II
dated 8th January, 2010 whereby the respondents have proposed a
disciplinary inquiry to be held against the petitioner. The respondents have
passed an order dated 11th January, 2010 proposing appointment of an inquiry
officer to conduct an inquiry into the charges and imputations which were
already served upon the petitioner in the proceedings held on 18 th December,
2009 in the earlier writ petition.
3. It is not disputed that the inquiry officer is seized of the entire matter.
4. The present writ petition makes a grievance of the failure to dispose of
the petitioner's representation dated 22nd February, 2010. The petitioner has
contended that the respondents have failed to supply him the documents
which he had sought by this representation. Additionally, the petitioner
assails the order dated 18th February, 2010 rejecting the petitioner's request
for appointment of a lawyer to conduct his defence. Our attention has been
drawn to an order dated 18th February, 2010 which reads as follows:-
"You are informed that as per Circular Order no.06/05-I-
3/INST-2 Legal dated 16.09.2005 issued by Director
General C.R.P.F. DO Letter no.D-IX-32/03 CRC dated
16.11.2005 of Director General C.R.P.F. and rule 15(8) (a)
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, government servant cannot take
legal practitioner in departmental inquiry."
5. So far as the prayer for documents is concerned, no order of the
respondent in respect thereto has been pointed out. Certainly, such a request
deserves to be considered and the order passed on the request of the
petitioner requires to be communicated to him.
6. We also find that the present writ petition lays a challenge to interim
orders passed by the inquiry officer. The same is unwarranted and appears to
be a deliberate attempt to delay and avoid the proceedings in the disciplinary
inquiry. Even otherwise, such orders and proceedings in the disciplinary
inquiry can be assailed by the petitioner at the stage of laying challenge to
the final order, if the same is against him.
7. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition
on the given challenges. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the
direction to the respondent to consider the representation dated 22nd
February, 2010 and communicate the order passed thereon to the petitioner
within a period of two weeks from today.
8. So far as the grounds of challenge to the proceedings which are being
conducted, is concerned, it is clarified that it shall be open for the petitioner
to lay a challenge on all grounds including those raised in the present writ
petition if he is aggrieved by the final outcome of the inquiry when he shall be
permitted to urge the same as the ground of challenge.
9. The respondent shall ensure that any pending salary of the petitioner
for the period from 3rd February, 2010 shall be released within a period of two
weeks from today. The respondents shall ensure that the monthly
emoluments payable to the petitioner shall be punctually paid in the future.
10. Having regard to the fact that the charges against the petitioner relate
to the year 1998 and the history of the present case, it is directed that the
inquiry shall proceed expeditiously and shall be concluded within a
reasonable period. The petitioner shall cooperate and facilitate effective
completion of inquiry.
This writ petition and application are disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti to both parties.
GITA MITTAL,J
VIPIN SANGHI, J
MARCH 10, 2010
aa
