Mr. R.Vasudevan vs Union Of India & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 1829 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P.(C) No. 2607/2013
%                                                           23rd April, 2013

Mr. R.VASUDEVAN                                                   ......Petitioner
                            Through:     Mr. Amarinder Saran, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
                                         Arohi Bhalla, Mr. Dhruv Pal and Mr.
                                         Sanchil Guru, Advocates.


                            VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                          ...... Respondents

                   Through:              Mr. Jatan Singh CGSC and Mr. Soayib
                                         Qureshi, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

    To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who was appointed as a member

of the Company Law Board. Petitioner was suspended from services on account of

various misdemeanors which are stated in detail in the chargesheet including of

possessing of cash and having assets beyond the known sources of income.

Departmental proceedings were going on against the petitioner. I may note that the

petitioner has retired on his ordinary date of superannuation i.e 15.3.2013.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks reliefs of quashing of certain

interim and procedural orders dated 18.3.2013 and 12.4.2013 passed by the

Enquiry Officer.

3. The effect of the orders which have been challenged is that the right

of the petitioner to lead further evidence is closed and petitioner has not been

granted the documents as asked for by him.

4. Before I proceed to decide the writ petition, I may note that the orders

which are passed in the course of enquiry proceedings are ordinarily not interfered

by the Courts, inasmuch as, otherwise enquiry proceedings can from time to time

be sought to be interfered with and thereby causing unnecessary delay in the

disposal of the same. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has not to

be exercised as if this Court was exercising power of superintendence of lower

court/ tribunals under Article 227 of the Constitution. Issue of a chargesheeted

official not being allowed to lead evidence of witnesses or not being given

documents, are all the aspects which will be considered by the Disciplinary

Authority before whom the report of the Enquiry Officer will be placed. Petitioner

at that stage will have complete right to challenge the report of the Enquiry Officer

allegedly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice including of the

petitioner's evidence being illegally closed or the petitioner not being supplied

with the documents. If Courts start entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, although the Disciplinary Authority has yet not passed

the order, then in such circumstances, there is all likelihood of enquiry proceedings

being scuttled and deliberately delayed.

5. Two main grounds were urged before me. The first was the claim of

the petitioner to documents which he asked for and the same was denied to him.

The second ground is the evidence of the petitioner being closed and the petitioner

not being allowed to examine two witnesses namely Sh. Manoj Kumar Banthia and

Sh. Ankur Chawla. It may be noted that on a query put to the counsel for the

petitioner, it is stated that petitioner himself does not want to step into the witness

box and he is only asking for deposition of Sh.Manoj Kumar Banthia and Sh.

Ankur Chawla.

6. So far as the first ground of the petitioner having not been supplied

the documents, I asked the counsel for the petitioner to show me the ground

pleaded in the writ petition as to which are the specific documents which the

petitioner is claiming and which were not supplied to him, and how the petitioner

has been prejudiced because of the same, however it is stated before me that no

such ground is raised which specifies that what are the documents in question

which are prayed to be given to the petitioner.

7. Independent of the aspect of lack of pleadings, a reading of the

pleadings/proceedings before the Enquiry Officer which have come on record

shows that really what the petitioner claims are those documents which pertain to

proceedings in the criminal court including of orders therein as also depositions of

witnesses in the criminal proceedings. In my opinion, the challenge which is laid

by the petitioner in this writ petition to the orders which deny him the documents is

misconceived for the reason that the departmental proceedings are independent

proceedings wherein the charges against the petitioner will be proved

independently of the documents before the criminal court and also the finding of

the criminal court. Both the sides including the petitioner have to prove their

cases/defence independent of the documents which are relied upon in the criminal

proceedings and any orders which may be passed in the criminal proceedings. I

am unable to understand as to how the petitioner can claim documents which are

the proceedings before the criminal court as also the deposition which are made in

the criminal court for the criminal court to arrive at a finding with respect to the

case which is being tried before the criminal court.

8. In any case, from the record of the writ petition, it is clear that the

Enquiry Officer has passed a detailed order on 24.1.2013 giving reasons for

declining the request of the petitioner for the documents. Therefore, effectively,

this writ petition challenges an interim order dated 24.1.2013 for non supply of

documents and against which this Court would not like to interfere with in exercise

of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

inasmuch as, departmental proceedings are still going on and Disciplinary

Authority has yet to pass the order and the petitioner will have complete liberty in

the departmental proceedings and thereafter to contend the effect of non grant of

the documents which the petitioner claims should be given.

9. So far as the second aspect of the right of the petitioner to lead

evidence of two witnesses namely Sh.Manoj Kumar Banthia and Sh. Ankur

Chawla being closed, counsel for the petitioner places great emphasis on the orders

passed by the Enquiry Officer dated 4.3.2013, 5.3.2013 and 18.3.2013 alongwith

the application filed by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer on 28.3.2013. It

is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 18.3.2013 wrongly

records the presence of the petitioner and which aspect is admitted by the Enquiry

Officer himself in the order dated 12.4.2013. It is also argued that by the order

dated 5.3.2013, it was stated that the next date of hearing will be intimated in due

course, and therefore, the petitioner was at complete liberty thereafter to lead on

the date to be fixed for the evidence being the depositions of Sh. Manoj Kumar

Banthia and Sh. Ankur Chalwa, however, the Enquiry Officer illegally closed the

hearing in the case on 18.3.2013 by wrongly recording the presence of the

chargesheeted official. Stress is laid on the fact that if the petitioner was not

present on a date not fixed, the right of the petitioner to lead evidence could not be

closed.

10. In my opinion, this argument which is urged on behalf of the

petitioner on the first blush seemed to have substance, however really, the same is

misconceived for the reasons hereinafter.

11. The issue is with respect to depositions of two witnesses namely Sh.

Manoj Kumar Banthia and Sh.Ankur Chawla. Before I say anything on this aspect

I must note that the proceedings in question are departmental proceedings and not

civil court proceedings or criminal court proceedings. In departmental

proceedings, there is no provision of summoning the witnesses through court and if

a person wants to lead evidence in support of his case, it is for that person to bring

his witnesses who have to depose in his favour. Departmental proceedings are not

technically legal proceedings either of the civil court or of the criminal court.

Principles of natural justice have no doubt to be followed but such principles of

natural justice are not hidebound or inflexible rules, the object being to ensure that

complete liberty is given to a person to put his case before the Enquiry Officer.

12. In view of the aforesaid, the issue is firstly seen so far the deposition

required of Mr. Manoj Kumar Banthia. It is not disputed that this person himself

is an accused in the same criminal proceedings in which the petitioner is an

accused. The orders of the Enquiry Officer dated 4.3.2013, 5.3.2013 and 18.3.2013

show that Mr. Banthia was unwilling to depose because it would affect the

criminal case against him. The orders of the Enquiry Officer also show that in

spite of opportunities Sh. Manoj Kumar Banthia hence did not appear in the

enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer closed the proceedings on

18.3.2013. Though the presence of the petitioner is wrongly recorded and in fact

next date of hearing was to be intimated in due course as per the order dated

5.3.2013, however, in my opinion, that cannot in any manner mean that the order

dated 18.3.2013 is to be faulted with because if the petitioner had only to examine

Sh. Manoj Kumar Banthia and Sh. Ankur Chalwa, who did not appear in spite of

repeated opportunities, then, there was no duty upon the Enquiry Officer to

continue the proceedings so far as Manoj Kumar Banthia is concerned because

there were clear indications that he would not like to depose as that would

prejudice his case in the criminal case.

13. So far as Sh. Ankur Chalwa is concerned, I during the course of

hearing put it to the counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner is ready and

willing to confine the opportunity sought by him to record evidence limited to the

statement of Mr. Ankur Chawla, however, Mr.Amrinder Saran, learned senior

counsel for the petitioner, on instructions said that petitioner wants to pursue the

petition and not confine the petition to an opportunity for giving the petitioner to

lead the evidence only of Sh. Ankur Chalwa. I had specifically put this query to

counsel for the petitioner so as to test the bonafides of the petitioner as to whether

really the petitioner is prejudiced and the petitioner only wants to lead the evidence

of Sh. Ankur Chawla, but the stand of the petitioner makes it clear that the

petitioner is wanting to make a game out of judicial proceedings.

14. I have already dealt with the aspect of the deposition of Sh.Manoj

Kumar Banthia, and now if we take the case of Sh. Ankur Chawla, I find that

nowhere in the orders passed by the Enquiry Officer dated 4.3.2013 and 5.3.2013

there is any mention at all that the petitioner has to lead the evidence of Sh. Ankur

Chalwa in support of his case. In the orders reference is only made to the

deposition of Sh. Manoj Kumar Banthia. I may at the risk of repetition state that

counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has stated that the petitioner himself

does not want to step into the witness box and the issue is only with respect to the

evidence of Sh. Ankur Chawla. Therefore, in view of the fact that there is no

challenge to the correctness of the record of the orders dated 4.3.2013, 5.3.2013

and which orders do not show that the petitioner wanted to examine Sh. Ankur

Chalwa in support of his defence, thus now what is sought to be pleaded that

Sh.Ankur Chalwa has to be examined is clearly an afterthought more so because of

the conduct of the petitioner in which the petitioner wants now to challenge not

only the issue of non examination of Sh. Ankur Chalwa but also of Sh. Manoj

Kumar Banthia with the additional aspect of petitioner being entitled to claim

production of various documents and which aspect has already been dealt with and

rejected by me above.

15. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is

accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- and which costs can be recovered

by the respondent no.1 from the dues which are payable to the petitioner.

All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

APRIL 23, 2013                                      VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib