Delhi High Court
Rakesh Pandita vs Lic & Ors on 18 March, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 7287/2010 & CM No.14425/2010 (Stay)
% 18th March, 2013
RAKESH PANDITA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv.
versus
LIC & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sudeep Singh, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The only ground urged in this writ petition for setting aside of the
departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner is the ground of delay. What is
urged by the petitioner is that petitioner had applied for VRS vide letter dated
20.10.2006, and after the expiry of the period specified in the application, it is averred
on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is deemed to have got voluntary
retirement. It is argued that departmental proceedings thus could not be initiated after
about three years of deemed acceptance.
W.P(C) 7287/2010. Page 1 of 3
2. On behalf of the respondent no.1, it is pleaded that there cannot be
automatic voluntary retirement and an application for VRS has to be accepted under
the rules.
3. When asked to point out any provision as to how there is automatic
voluntary retirement on mere submission of the application by the petitioner, counsel
for the petitioner confines his argument only to the delay in initiating the departmental
proceedings. It may be noted that departmental proceedings have been initiated
against the petitioner for abandoning of the services. Unless there is lack of
jurisdiction or similar other issue, departmental proceedings cannot be scuttled
because all defences of fact and law have to be taken in the enquiry proceedings.
4. I may note that during the pendency of the petition enquiry proceedings
have been completed. The petitioner has participated in the same and a report has
now been made by the Enquiry Officer which has been filed in a sealed cover to this
Court. What is the report of the enquiry officer is not known and in any case, the
report of the enquiry officer is not final inasmuch as, the report of the enquiry officer
has to be accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, and that too after giving the
petitioner a show cause notice and also personal hearing. Therefore, today, there is no
prejudice to the petitioner by any order which has been passed against the petitioner.
W.P(C) 7287/2010. Page 2 of 3
5. In view of the above, it is directed that the report of the enquiry officer
which has been filed in this Court in a sealed cover be returned back to the respondent
no.1, and the respondent no.1 on the basis of this enquiry report, and if the same is
against the petitioner, will serve the petitioner with a show cause notice and thereafter
give the petitioner a hearing before the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary
Authority thereafter will pass an order in accordance with law.
6. Since a mere delay in initiation of proceedings in the facts of this case is
not a ground for quashing of the departmental proceedings, therefore, on whatever
grounds the petitioner has to challenge the report of the enquiry officer, including the
ground of any delay, will have to be urged by the petitioner in the departmental
proceedings before the Disciplinary Authority at the first stage.
7. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
8. The interim order dated 28.10.2010 is vacated. The enquiry report in
sealed cover be given back to the respondent no.1 through counsel by the Registry of
this Court within a period of one week.
MARCH 18, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
