Delhi High Court
Dr. A.K. Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 29 August, 2014
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 29.08.2014
+ W.P.(C) 5519/2014
DR. A.K. SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through :Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Sh. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Sh.
Shyam Sundar Rai, Advocate, for Resp. Nos. 1 and
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
C.M. NO.10961/2014 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 5519/2014
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 09.05.2014 in O.A. No.
85/2013; he had sought for quashing of disciplinary proceedings
initiated against him for alleged major misconduct in regard to an
action which is subject matter of criminal proceedings.
W.P.(C) 5519/2014 Page 1
2. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 17.07.2006,
which inter alia alleged as follows:
"It is alleged that Shri A.K. Singh, being the Incharge of
purchase, Drug & F. Section of the GMSD, New Delhi was
well aware of the day & day functioning of these sections. It
was in the knowledge that on 19.04.95, there was stock of
999500 tablets of Richimol Plus in the Depot. Even after
Shri Singh recommended the Local Purchase Proposal
(LPP) for purchase of 10 lacs tablets of Richimol Plus, on
the assumed/fake demand of regular indentor of Depot, in
which stock of this tablet was shown to be nil. Shri Singh
also recommended purchase of 10 lacs tablets of Richimol
Plus shown to have been demanded by Regular Indentor of
the Depot dated 19.9.05. Shri A.K. Singh also recommended
the purchase action for 10 lacs tablets of Richimil Plus
shown to have been demanded vide indent 01.0296 of LNJP
Hospital, New Delhi. Shri A.K. Singh never verified the
genuineness of these demand/indents which were created to
fulfill the demand of the indent dated 31.3.95/17.4.95 and
11.3.96 of CGHS, New Delhi.
It was in the knowledge of Shri A.K. Singh that the tablets
Richimol Plus purchased in the name of above Hospitals
and the supply of the same were made to the CGHS, MSD,
New Delhi against indent dated 313-95/17.04.95 & 11.03.96
and the rate enquiry against these indents were never
finalized and the purchase was being made in the name of
different hospital on fake demand, to fulfill the requirement
of CGHS Indent dated 31.3.95/17.4.95.
By the above acts and omission, Shri A.K. Singh committed
gross misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity,
devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming
of a govt. servant and thus violated Rule No. 31(1 ) (ii) (iii)
of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
W.P.(C) 5519/2014 Page 2
3. Apparently, the criminal proceedings had been initiated and the
matter had been referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),
which had filed a charge sheet in 1999. However, the criminal
proceedings have not yet culminated in any final judgment. The
petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2010 and
contended that the long delay in the proceedings has resulted in
causing him grave prejudice. The petitioner, therefore, submitted that
the pendency of criminal and departmental proceedings have led to a
situation whereby his final terminal benefits have not been released,
and pension has been fixed provisionally. His claim of quashing of
disciplinary proceedings and release of pension was, however,
rejected. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be faulted
for the delay in culmination of criminal proceedings, which is the
basis for holding over of disciplinary proceedings initiated as far back
as in 2006. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court reported as Chief Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh
v. R. Veerabhadram, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 486, to say that long drawn
out proceedings in such cases can be violative of employees' rights,
particularly when he attains the age of superannuation. It was
contended that if, indeed, the respondents were of the opinion that the
charge of misconduct is sufficiently grave, they should have
completed the proceedings at least by the time the petitioner attained
the age of superannuation; this course of action was open even under
Rule 9 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules. Learned counsel suggested that
directions be issued to the respondents to take-up conclusive
disciplinary proceedings and complete it within a time-bound manner.
W.P.(C) 5519/2014 Page 3
4. This Court has considered the submissions. As is evident from
the extracts of the charge sheet, certain serious allegations were
levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel had contended
that on almost identical facts, another officer was charged but was
subsequently inflicted only with a cut in pension, which after some
time, was restored. In these circumstances, he submitted that the
petitioner should not be made to suffer indefinitely.
5. This Court is of the opinion that the parity in circumstances
sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner is unfounded in the
circumstances of the case. The charges issued against the other officer,
Sh. Y.K. Aggarwal appear to be different from the substance of
allegations levelled against the present petitioner. That apart, the
sequence of events in this case indicates that even though the CBI
filed charge sheet in 1999, the respondents took a slightly charitable
view and did not proceed departmentally at the very outset, at that
stage, but preferred to wait for seven years till they issued a charge
memo. The delay on the part of the respondents appears to be possibly
on account of the pending criminal proceedings which had not
culminated in a final order. In the circumstances, the relief of quashing
of the disciplinary proceeding would not be an appropriate order. At
the same time, this Court notices that the petitioner has been put to
some hardship on account of withholding of his terminal benefits.
6. We are of the opinion that the respondents should consider the
totality of circumstances and pass appropriate orders if it wishes to
pursue the departmental proceedings. In such event, the petitioner may
W.P.(C) 5519/2014 Page 4
be informed of the position as well as the time and venue for such
proceeding. In the event of such departmental proceedings being
taken, the concerned criminal authorities shall cooperate and furnish
certain copies of the relevant records which are relevant for the
departmental proceedings, to the parties. The respondents shall
endeavour to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings are completed
thereafter at the earliest convenience, preferably within nine months
thereafter.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
VIPIN SANGHI
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 29, 2014
'ajk'
W.P.(C) 5519/2014 Page 5
