Delhi High Court
R.N. Upadhayay vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 24 February, 2014
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 24.02.2014
+ W.P.(C) 1269/2014
R.N. UPADHAYAY ..... PETITIONER
versus
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. ..... RESPONDENT
ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE:
For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Agarwal and Ms. Kusum Sharma, Advs.
For the respondent: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar with Mr. Amit Kumar and Mr. Vikas
Mehta, Advs
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
1. This is a writ petition which seeks to challenge the order dated
20.10.2011 passed by the disciplinary authority as also the order dated
18.5.2012, passed by the appellate authority; which sustained the order of the
disciplinary authority.
2. The charge against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings was
that he had extended undue favours to two firms, both of which were run by
his son, i.e. Mr. Pramod Kumar. This, according to the disciplinary authority
resulted in violation of the Office Order dated 4.7.1985 and also, impinged
upon attributes, such as, integrity and devotion to duty. The latter, according
to the disciplinary authority, violated Rules 3 and 4 of the CCS (Conduct)
Rule, 1964.
3. In the background of the aforesaid charge, a charge sheet was served on
the petitioner, on 30.1.1995. As mandated, an enquiry was held, in which,
the petitioner fully participated. The enquiry officer though, came to the
conclusion, that the charge was not proved against the petitioner. The
disciplinary authority, however, disagreed with the conclusion reached by the
enquiry officer and, in that behalf, generated a note of
disagreement-cum-show cause notice. The said notice is dated 25.11.2002.
Pertinently, in the interregnum, the petitioner retired from service in 2000.
3.1 The petitioner, filed a reply dated 07.01.2003 to the said note of
disagreement-cum-show cause notice.
4. The disciplinary authority, vide its order dated 20.10.2011, finally
imposed a penalty on the petitioner. The penalty imposed was 10% cut in
pension for a period of six months. Furthermore, the disciplinary authority
ruled that the petitioner will not be entitled to promotion till his retirement.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was
dismissed by the appellate authority, vide order dated 18.5.2012.
6. As indicated above, it is against the aforesaid orders that the petitioner,
has preferred the present writ petition.
7. Mr. Agarwal, who appears for the petitioner, says that the impugned
orders are flawed for the reason that the enquiry officer had returned a finding
of fact that the petitioner, who was working as a senior clerk at the relevant
time, had shown no undue favours to the two firms run by his son. Mr.
Agarwal further submits that the finding clearly brings forth the fact that
payment of moneys to the contractors, which included his son's firm, was
made in consonance with the principle of seniority, that is, according to the
age of the bills submitted, and that, no undue favours were shown to the two
firms, with which, the petitioner's son was connected.
7.1 It was also Mr. Agarwal's contention that the petitioner's son did not
fall within the definition of a "family member", as his name had been deleted
from the ration card of the petitioner.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhakar laid emphasis on the relevant
provisions of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, in particular Rule 4(iii). It was Mr.
Prabhakar's contention that the purpose of rule was to ensure that the
employee displays utmost integrity in financial dealings. Mr. Prabhakar
contended that there was no dispute about the fact that the petitioner had
cleared payments pertaining to the firms, with which, his son was connected.
Mr. Prabhakar submitted, that rule mandated, disclosure of this vital
information by the petitioner to his superiors. Since, the petitioner had not
done so, the impugned orders were legally valid and, thus, ought not to be
disturbed.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. In my view, the record clearly shows that the petitioner during
investigation by the Vigilance Department had made a statement that his son
was engaged in the business with the erstwhile Delhi Vidhyut Board (D.V.B).
The record also shows that the petitioner was involved in making payments
pertaining to his son's firms and had, at no point in time, made disclosure of
this fact, to his superiors.
12. Mr. Agarwal does not contend that these findings are erroneous. His
only contention is that since the enquiry officer returned a finding that no
undue favours were shown, the impugned orders are flawed in law.
13. In my view, the sum and substance of the charges framed against the
petitioner was the non-disclosure of his son's connection with the two firms in
issue. The petitioner was required to display absolute integrity in dealing
with the contractors and, therefore, this fact ought to have been brought to the
notice of his superiors; an information, which was not passed on by the
petitioner, to his superiors.
14. Mr. Agarwal's other contention that the petitioner's son's name was
deleted from the ration card, in my view, is an argument which cannot dilute
the finding that Rules 3 and 4 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, which required
disclosure of this vital information by the petitioner, stood violated.
15. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no interference
is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution with the impugned orders.
16. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2014
s.pal
