Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Others vs Girish Trivedi on 9 May, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3048/2011
Date of order: 9th May, 2011
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Advocate.
versus
GIRISH TRIVEDI ..... Respondents
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether 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 the Digest ?
SANJIV KHANNA, J.:
Union of India has filed the present writ petition assailing the
order dated 24th May, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench (Tribunal, for short) allowing
O.A.No.1304/2008 filed by Girish Trivedi, the respondent herein.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had
given a false inspection report as the sample cupboard was painted and
not French polished as stipulated. It is submitted that the Tribunal has
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3048/2011 Page 1 of 4
exceeded its jurisdiction and could not have upset the findings
recorded by the disciplinary authority.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the petitioner, but
do not find any substance or ground to interfere with the impugned
order. The inspection report of the respondent dated 7th August, 1990
has been placed on record and for the sake of convenience, the same is
reproduced below:-
" The advance sample of the subject store
submitted by the firm vide challan quoted under
reference has been tested to the quoted particulars
and the following variations are observed:-
(a) Organic copper is not traceable in the preservative
copper naphthenate used on the wooden surface or
Almirah.
(b) Instead of wooden blocks of size 65x20x20mm
being provided at the ends of inside of the frame a
single wood block of size 570x20x20mm has been
provided.
(c) (i)The thickness of plywood sheet varies from 3.5.
to 3.75 mm against 4.0mm specified.
(ii) Distance between Ist and 2nd shelf from top
(Side section) and 2nd & 3rd shelf from top is 355
mm each against 365mm specified.
(iii) Size of shelf rest in 140x20x20mm
against 33mm
(d) Other minor dimensional variations exist.
The variations at (a), (b), (c)(i) to (iii) & (d) to the
extent present are considered rectifiable in nature.
The firm may please be advised to go ahead with
bulk manufacture after eliminating above
variations. They may also be advised to use
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3048/2011 Page 2 of 4
specified quality of copper naphthenate, French
polish and plywood."
(emphasis supplied)
4. It is clear from the inspection report that the respondent had
stated that the supplier should be advised to use specified quality of
copper naphthenate, French polish and plywood. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has relied upon another letter dated 28th June, 1991
written by the respondent, but it is admitted that this letter was written
after the actual supply was made. Letter dated 28th June, 1991 was,
therefore, not relevant. This letter was not the subject matter of the
charge sheet. Even if an incorrect and wrong statement has been made
in the said letter, it did not obliterate the inspection report dated 7th
August, 1990. The Tribunal has noticed that there were instructions
that the testing of samples should be completed and should be cleared
within one month. The respondent did not have authority to accept the
bulk production clearance, which was examined by the technical
committee and accepted. It was noticed that against K.P. Singh and
Laxmi Chand major penalty proceedings were initiated and dropped
and only displeasure was recorded.
5. The Tribunal in the present case has held that there was error in
the decision making process and the inspection report of the
respondent was ignored. It was the inspection report of the sample
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3048/2011 Page 3 of 4
which has been made subject matter of charge and the contention
raised was that the respondent had accepted the painted sample, though
the requirement of the contract was that the cupboard should be French
polished. As is noticeable, the inspection report dated 7th August, 1990
specifically records that the supplier was required to use specified
quality of French polish. The respondent had not stated that the
cupboards could be painted and had not modified the terms of the
contract.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present
writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
MAY 09, 2011
NA/VKR
