Delhi High Court
D K Srivastava vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 March, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 301/2011
Decided on 4.3.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
D K SRIVASTAVA ..... Petitioner
Through : Petitioner in person.
versus
UOI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through : Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Advocate
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner who is a Law Officer
working for HUDCO at Jaipur, Rajasthan, praying inter alia for directions to
respondent No.1, Ministry of Housing & Urban Development, and respondent
No.2, Central Vigilance Commission, for contemplating disciplinary
proceedings for major penalties against respondents No.5 to 11, who are
officers holding the post of Managing Director, Executive Directors, etc., in
respondent No.4/HUDCO, for their alleged criminal misconducts in
fabricating a charge sheet dated 12.10.2010 issued to the petitioner, for an
inquiry to be held against him on the basis of the articles of charge enclosed
with the said charge sheet. The petitioner also seeks directions to
respondents No.1 & 2 to call upon respondent No.3/CBI to take appropriate
action against respondents No.5 to 11 under Sections 204/218/120B IPC for
preparation of an incorrect charge sheet dated 12.10.2010 and for
fabricating order dated 10.2.2011, which is an order passed by the Chairman
& Managing Director of respondent No.4/HUDCO, appointing a Presenting
Officer to conduct an inquiry against the petitioner on the basis of the
charges framed against him.
2. A perusal of the order dated 10.2.2011 reveals that respondent
No.4/HUDCO has appointed a Presenting Officer to conduct an inquiry on the
charges framed against the petitioner. It is stated that the inquiry is being
held at the Bhopal Regional Office of respondent No.4.
3. On inquiry as to the status of the domestic inquiry initiated
against the petitioner on the basis of the Memorandum dated 12.10.2010
(Annexure Petitioner-14), it is stated by the petitioner that he has filed a
reply to the articles of charge framed against him and thereafter the inquiry
is continuing against him under the HUDCO Conduct, Discipline & Appeal
Rules 1976.
4. The petitioner, who appears in person, states that in the year
2009, he had lodged FIR No.318/2009 at Jaipur City (South), Rajasthan,
against respondents No.4 to 11 on the same grounds as alleged in the
petition, which was closed by the Jaipur Police by filing a final report dated
8.4.2010, stating inter alia, that the offences made out were civil in nature.
Admittedly, no protest petition was filed by the petitioner before the
appropriate court challenging the aforesaid final report. The petitioner
states that he did not file a protest petition as the Final Report stated that
the offences made out were civil in nature. It may be observed that merely
because the final report mentioned that the offences were civil in nature, did
not legally disentitle the petitioner from filing a protest petition before the
appropriate court in the State of Rajasthan. However, the petitioner has
not invoked the legal remedy which was available to him in law.
5. The petitioner further states that though he had written to
respondent No.2/CVC complaining against respondents No.4 to 11 in the
year 2008, the said Department has not taken any action on the said
complaint. He draws the attention of this Court to the letter dated
22.2.2011 received from respondent No.2/CVC, wherein it is stated that the
recommendation report has yet to be received on the complaint filed by the
petitioner.
6. The present petition appears to be more an attempt on the part
of the petitioner to try and delay the disciplinary inquiry proceedings
initiated against him. If it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4
has taken some action against him which is contrary to law, he shall be
entitled to assail the same at the end of the enquiry proceedings before the
appropriate forum. Given the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to
exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner by invoking the
extraordinary powers vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Hence the relief as sought by the petitioner is declined.
7. As far as the complaint of the petitioner with regard to the lack
of action on the part of respondent No.2/CVC on the complaint lodged by the
petitioner is concerned, the present petition is disposed of with directions to
respondent No.2/CVC to take appropriate action in respect of the pending
complaint lodged by the petitioner and intimate to him the outcome thereof
as expeditiously as possible.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to respondent
No.2/CVC for information and compliance.
(HIMA KOHLI)
MARCH 04, 2011 JUDGE
sk
