Delhi High Court
R K Nafria vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2014
Author: Gita Mittal
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.2950/2014 & CM Nos.6136-6137/2014
Date of Decision: 12th May, 2014
R K NAFRIA ..... PETITIONER
Through : Mr.M.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
with Mr.Pulkit Sharma, Adv.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
Through : Mr.Saqib, Adv. with
Ms.Shalini Aggarwal, Adv.
for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J (Oral)
CM No.6137/2014
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
WP (C) No.2950/2014 & CM No.6136/2014
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22nd April, 2014
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, rejecting OA No.4559 of
2013. It appears that the respondent-CPWD issued a memorandum dated
22nd November, 2013 calling upon the petitioner to explain the reasons of
certain lapses ranging from 2006 onwards. The petitioner's several
requests to the respondents seeking copies of the documents to enable
him to submit a reply to the said memorandum was not acceded to by the
respondents. The respondents' claimed before the Tribunal that the
petitioner was permitted inspection of the record on 24 th December, 2014
and that he had seen the record. It was submitted that in terms of the
guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commissioner at the stage of
conducting a preliminary inquiry, the respondents are not required to
make available to the employee concerned, any documents at that stage.
In view thereof, the respondents had complied with the requirements of
law inasmuch as at that stage the matter was under consideration as a
preliminary inquiry alone.
3. The Tribunal accepted this submission of the respondent and in
view of the fact that the memorandum dated 22 nd November, 2013 was
not in the nature of a charge memorandum issued under the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965 rejected the petitioner's contention for copies of the
documents.
4. Mr.M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us
through para 4.4 (g) of the guidelines by the Central Vigilance
Commission which reads as follows:-
"4.4 (g) - During the course of preliminary enquiry, the
public servant concerned may be given an opportunity
to say what he may have to say about the allegations
against him to find out if he is in a position to give any
satisfactory information or explanation. In the absence
of such an explanation, the public servant concerned is
of such an explanation, the public servant concerned is
likely to be proceeded against unjustifiably. It is,
therefore, desirable that the investigating officer tries
to obtain the suspect officers' version of "facts" and
why an inquiry should not be held. There is no
question of making available to him any document at
this stage. Such an opportunity however may not be
given in cases in which a decision to institute
departmental proceedings is to be taken without any
loss of time; e.g. in a case in which the public servant
concerned is due to retire or to superannuate soon and
it is necessary to issue a charge-sheet to him before his
retirement."
5. It is also not disputed before us that the matter is at the stage of
preliminary consideration. In view of the above guideline, the
petitioner's request for copies of documents to enable him to respond to
the memorandum dated 22nd November, 2013 is not tenable and the order
of the Tribunal rejecting the same cannot be faulted. The petitioner has
made a grievance that the action against him is grossly belated and mala
fide being on the eve of his superannuation on 31st May, 2014. We are
not required to examine this contention of the petitioner in this petition.
However, the respondents have accepted the position that the petitioner
was entitled to the inspection of the record. The counter affidavit is
bereft of the documents which were made available to the petitioner in
the inspection on 24th December, 2013. Details of the documents which
were made available to the petitioner are not forthcoming.
6. The petitioner has contended that the proposals which are the
subject matter of the memorandum dated 22nd November, 2013 were
approved by the competent authorities. The record relating to the
processing of the contracts with regard to which allegations have been
made, are certainly relevant inasmuch as the memorandum dated 22nd
November, 2013 makes a detailed reference thereto. Therefore, without
interfering with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
we deem it to be in the interest of justice to grant the petitioner one
meaningful and real opportunity to inspect the record.
7. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to make available the
complete record which is relating to the transactions referred in the memo
dated 22nd November, 2013 to the petitioner for which purpose, he shall
appear before the Executive Engineer (Vigilance) of the respondents on
19th May, 2013 at 11.00 a.m. The complete record shall be made
available to the petitioner and he shall be permitted to inspect the record.
The petitioner shall be permitted to take notes in his inspection. In case
the petitioner requires any specific documents to be made available for
inspection, he shall inform the authority concerned in writing for the
same. In case the inspection is not completed on the same date, the same
may be conducted on the following days or any other day and time
mutually convenient to the petitioner and the authority. The inspection
shall be completed within one week of the commencement. The
petitioner may submit his reply to the memorandum within one week
thereafter.
The writ petition and application are disposed of in the above
terms.
Dasti.
(GITA MITTAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPA SHARMA)
JUDGE
MAY 12, 2014
aa
