Delhi High Court
Csir Scientific Workers ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 22 March, 2013
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 22nd March, 2013
+ W.P.(C) No.2589/1999
CSIR SCIENTIFIC WORKERS ASSOCIATION, NISCOM
BRANCH & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv. for Mr.
Prashant Bhushan, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Praveen Swarup, Adv. for R-2
CSIR.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. This petition, by way of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been
filed seeking directions to the Union of India (UOI), Council of Scientific &
Industrial Research (CSIR) and Dr. G.P. Phondke director of the National
Institute of Science & Communication (NISCOM), New Delhi.
2. It is inter alia the case of the petitioners:
(i) that the CSIR was set up as a registered Society by the
Government of India inter alia to facilitate industrial application and
use of scientific research, with many constituent laboratories and
W.P.(C) No.2589/1999 Page 1 of 7
institutions, one of which is NISCOM, established in 1943 as
Publication and Information Directorate (PID) with the function of
conducting research into and compiling a database of the natural
resources and industrial wealth available in different parts of India;
(ii) that with the aforesaid objectives NISCOM has been preparing,
compiling and disseminating a detailed and voluminous publication
called "The Wealth of India" (in English) and "Bharat Ki Sampada"
(in Hindi) comprising of a valuable database on the biological and
mineral wealth of India and which is a national resource compiled at
the expense of NISCOM;
(iii) that in 1989, respondent No.3 Dr. G.P. Phondke became the
Director of NISCOM and whose style of functioning threatened the
very existence of NISCOM and which lead to the constitution of an
Enquiry Committee (of Dr. Sangal);
(iv) that despite the Enquiry Committee finding a large number of
gross irregularities having been committed by the respondent No.3 Dr.
G.P. Phondke and others at the helm of affairs of NISCOM, no action
was being taken neither against the respondent No.3 Dr. G.P. Phondke
nor for remedying the situation;
W.P.(C) No.2589/1999 Page 2 of 7
(v) that the respondent No.3 Dr. G.P. Phondke had also transferred
the entire database of NISCOM regarding the natural wealth of India
from NISCOM into the hands of a new private Society called Asian
Health, Environmental & Allied Database (AHEAD) controlled by
Dr. G.P. Phondke himself and his associates and also transferred
certain grants meant for NISCOM to AHEAD. Other acts of
mismanagement of affairs of NISCOM by the respondent No.3 Dr.
G.P. Phondke are also set out in the writ petition and which for the
reasons recorded herein below, are not required to be detailed herein;
(vi) that expeditious implementation of Dr. Sangal Committee‟s
Report in full is necessary in view of serious and grave findings of the
Committee regarding the malfunctioning of the premier public
institution.
3. Following reliefs are claimed in the petition:
(a) allow this writ petition and issue suitable directions to the
respondents for restoration of the copy right and data base of "Wealth
of India"/"Bharat Ki Sampada" to NISCOM from a private society
namely AHEAD and for resumption of the publication of "Wealth of
India" / "Bharat Ki Sampada" in NISCOM;
W.P.(C) No.2589/1999 Page 3 of 7
(b) direct the respondents to release the copy of the report of the
One-Man Fact Finding Committee headed by Mr. D.K. Sangal on the
irregularities in National Institute of Science Communication, to the
public;
(c) direct the respondent No.1 to prosecute respondent No.3 for
criminal breach of trust and offences under the Prevention of
Corruption Act for his acts of abusing his position as the Director of
NISCOM to transfer the entire database of NISCOM to his private
Society called AHEAD;
(d) direct the respondents No.1 & 2 to initiate disciplinary
proceedings under the conduct rules against respondent No.3 and
other senior officials who have been found guilty of serious
misconduct by the enquiry committee report of Mr. D.K. Sangal.
4. Notice of the petition was issued. On 23 rd December, 1999, the
counsel for CSIR informed that a decision had been taken to withdraw
membership of NISCOM from AHEAD and that steps would be taken to
initiate departmental proceedings against some of the officers in terms of Dr.
Sangal Committee‟s Report. On 19th September, 2000, the Additional
Solicitor General appearing for CSIR again stated that departmental action
W.P.(C) No.2589/1999 Page 4 of 7
has been initiated against certain officers and further stated that copyright of
the journal "Bharat Ki Sampada" remains with NISCOM. Vide order dated
17th November, 2004, copy of Dr. Sangal Committee‟s Report was directed
to be placed on record. The order dated 14th September, 2005 records that
the respondents had taken action against 18 officials and penalty had also
been imposed on them. The matter was however adjourned for the
respondents to inform the action which had been taken against the
respondent No.3 Dr. G.P. Phondke. The matter has been languishing
thereafter.
5. Today, the counsel for the petitioners has stated that if the counsel for
the respondents makes a statement that the copyright and database of
"Wealth of India"/ "Bharat Ki Sampada" is still with NISCOM, the
petitioners would be satisfied and the prayer (a) aforesaid in the writ petition
would not survive.
6. The counsel for the respondent No.2 CSIR reiterates that the
copyright and database is still with NISCOM and thus there is no need for
taking any action for retrieval thereof from AHEAD.
7. Accordingly, prayer (a) in the writ petition stands satisfied.
W.P.(C) No.2589/1999 Page 5 of 7
8. As far as prayer (b) supra in the writ petition is concerned, Dr. Sangal
Committee‟s Report has already been made public and the counsel for the
petitioners also states that the said relief stands granted and does not survive.
9. Similarly, prayer (d) in the writ petition for direction to the UOI and
CSIR to initiate disciplinary proceedings under the Conduct Rules stands
satisfied, inasmuch as the said proceedings were initiated.
10. Thus, only prayer (c) supra remains in the writ petition i.e. for
direction to prosecute the respondent No.3 Dr. G.P. Phondke. Admittedly,
no First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged. The counsel for the
respondent No.2 CSIR informs that the appointment of the respondent No.3
Dr. G.P. Phondke was contractual and thus disciplinary proceedings against
him were not possible and whatever action was permissible under the said
contractual appointment has been taken. He further states that the FIR was
not lodged since the material was not found to be sufficient.
11. The counsel for the petitioners confines the direction under prayer (c)
in the writ petition to forwarding of Dr. Sangal Committee‟s Report to the
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) for its opinion and for lodging of the
FIR if the CVC on the basis of the said report is of such opinion.
W.P.(C) No.2589/1999 Page 6 of 7
12. The said course of action is agreeable to the counsel for the
respondent No.2 CSIR.
13. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 CSIR is directed to forward a copy
of the fact finding report of Dr. D.K. Sangal to the CVC within four weeks
along with the accompaniment and annexures if any and to thereafter, within
one week of the request therefor being received, supply to CVC such further
information as may be required by the CVC for rendering an opinion in the
matter. The CVC is requested to, at the earliest and in any case within six
months of the receipt of the report from the respondent No.2 CSIR, render
an opinion on the feasibility of lodging an FIR against the respondent No.3
Dr. G.P. Phondke and/or of the offence if any made out. The respondent
No.2 CSIR is further directed to abide by the opinion so rendered by the
CVC.
14. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
MARCH 22, 2013/„bs‟..
