Genco Officers Assocaition & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 3134 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 16.07.2014

+      W.P.(C) 6130/2013

GENCO OFFICERS ASSOCAITION & ANR                                 ... Petitioners

                                           versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                             ... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner                     : Mr S. D. Windlesh
For the Respondent   No.1              : Mr Himanshu Bajaj
For the Respondent   No.2              : Ms Zubeda Begum with Ms Sana Ansari
For the Respondent   No.3              : Mr R. V. Sinha with Mr A. S. Singh
For the Respondent   No.4              : Mr P. K. Sharma with Mr Rakesh Sharma
                                         and Ms Somi Mehra
For the Respondent Nos.6 & 7           : Ms Avnish Ahlawat with Ms Latika Chaudhary

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                   JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been filed on the ground that no action was

being taken by the respondents and particularly the respondent No. 3

pursuant to the complaint dated 03.10.2012 with regard to certain alleged

activities in Pragati Power Corporation Limited and Indraprastha Power

Generation Company Limited (PPCL and IPGCL).

2. Initially, a Division Bench of this Court had directed issuance of

notice only to respondent No.3 (Central Vigilance Commission).

Thereafter, all the respondents were directed to file their counter-affidavits.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is respondent No.4. They have

filed their counter-affidavit which is not yet on record. But, a copy of the

same has been handed over to us and which we take on record. In the said

counter-affidavit, they have stated that representations of the petitioner

association had been examined by the CBI and had been forwarded to the

Chief Vigilance Officer, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi

for necessary action at their end, after approval of the competent authority

as, according to the CBI, prima facie, procedural irregularities in the

selection procedure by the senior officials of the PPLC had been indicated.

3. The counter-affidavit filed by the CBI further reveals that the

complaint referred to above is not of such an extra-ordinary and exceptional

nature, wherein inter-state or international investigation is required

whereby an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation would be

necessary. The learned counsel for the CBI also referred to the decision of

the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Committee for

Protection of Democratic Rights: (2010) 3 SCC 571, wherein the Supreme

Court has observed that it is only in exceptional circumstances that

directions for CBI investigation should be given by the High Courts.

4. In view of the fact that the matter is essentially a service related

matter and it is not of an exceptional nature where investigation by the CBI

would be necessary, we refrain from giving directions to the CBI to carry

out further investigations in this matter and thereby accept the request made

by the CBI.

5. Insofar as the Central Vigilance Commission is concerned, we have

heard Mr Sinha, who appeared on behalf of the said Commission and have

gone through the counter-affidavit filed by them. We have also gone

through the two OMs dated 08.04.2013 and 10.07.2013, which are to be

found at pages 94 and 95 of the paper book. The OM dated 08.04.2013

categorically noted the view of the Commission in the following terms:-

"4. In view of the above, the Commission in disagreement with the proposal of the DA, would advice initiation of major penalty proceedings against S/Sh. RR Sinha, GM(HR), RK Kapoor, then DGM(i/c) (HR) and G Sri Kumar, DM (HR) Rectt. for their complicity in the matter after framing charges to reflect lapse of respective officials with respect to their role and responsibility."

The said OM was addressed both to IPGCL and PPCL and was marked to

the CVO who, apparently, was common for both the organizations. When

reconsideration of the CVC recommendation was requested by IPGCL, the

CVC reiterated its earlier stand by virtue of the OM dated 10.07.2013 in the

following manner:-

"3. In view of the above, the Commission would reiterate its earlier advice of major penalty proceedings against S/Sh. RR Sinha, GM (HR), RK Kapoor, then DGM (i/c) HR and G Sri Kumar, DM (HR) Rectt., and, CVO is also advised to seek stage I advice of the Commission in respect of other officials including CMD, who were involved in processing the case.

4. In case of CMD and board level officials, view of the concerned ministry may be obtained before seeking advice of the Commission."

6. Thereafter, IPGCL and PPCL, in furtherance to the advice received

from the CVC, placed the matter before the Disciplinary Authority who,

after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, was of the view

that a case for major penalty against R. R. Sinha, GM (HR) was not made

out at all. Thereafter, a censure was imposed on the said Mr R. R. Sinha.

Insofar as the other two officials are concerned, however, charge-sheets

have been issued to them in respect of major penalties and the inquiries

have commenced.

7. In view of the fact that action has been taken pursuant to the

complaint dated 03.10.2012 and that with regard to the remaining two

officials, major penalty proceedings are in progress, no further directions

are necessary in this writ petition and the same stands disposed of.

                                       BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



JULY 16, 2014                             SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SR