Delhi High Court
D.R . Sarin vs National Seeds Corporation ... on 29 October, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6524/2014 & CM No.15562/2014
Decided on : 29.10.2014
D.R . SARIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.A.K.Singla, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Rahul Shukla & Mr.Deepak Dahiya,
Advocates
versus
NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. ....Respondents
Through Mr.G.Joshi, Advocate for R-1 & R-2
Mr.R.V.Sinha & Mr.A.S.Singh, Advocates
for R-3/CVC
Ms.H.Hnunpoii, Advocate for R-4
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter
alia for setting aside/quashing the Note and Resolution passed on
1.9.2014 in the 257th meeting of the Board of Directors of the
respondent No.1/National Seeds Corporation and the resultant
proceedings contemplated therein. Further, the petitioner seeks
issuance of directions to the respondent No.3/CVC to decide his
representation dated 3.9.2014 and to initiate action against the
respondent No.1/Corporation and the respondent No.2/CMD of the
Corporation for failing to take action on the investigation report dated
17.2.2014 prepared and forwarded by the petitioner in respect of the
irregularities in the sale of groundnut seeds and misappropriation of
government subsidies by the officials of the Corporation.
2. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for
disposal at the stage of admission.
3. Briefly adverting to the facts of the case, as culled out from the
petition, the petitioner was appointed as a General
Manager(Administration) in the respondent No.1/Corporation on
30.4.2009. On 30.5.2012, the petitioner was appointed as a part-time
Chief Vigilance Officer in the respondent No.1/Corporation. On
19.2.2014, the petitioner was divested from functioning as the Chief
Vigilance Officer of the respondent No.1/Corporation and he was
transferred to the Production Department. In the meantime, the
petitioner had applied for being appointed to the post of Chairman and
Managing Director of a Public Sector Undertaking, namely Artificial
Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India. On 21.3.2014, the Public
Enterprises Selection Board(PESB) recommended the petitioner's name
for selection to the subject post and vide letter dated 3.4.2014, the
competent authority appointed him as the Chairman and Managing
Director of the aforesaid PSU w.e.f. 1.10.2014. On 1.7.2014, a
separate communication was sent to the respondent No.4/Ministry of
Agriculture vide letter dated 1.7.2014, requesting it to relieve the
petitioner to enable him to taken up his new assignment.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in the meantime, the
respondent No.2/CMD of the Corporation got an Agenda Note prepared
for the 257th Board Meeting dated 1.9.2014, resolving inter alia to
institute a full-fledged inquiry with regard to creation/upgradation of
five posts of General Managers from E6 to E7 level and pending the
said inquiry, declining to relieve the petitioner from the service of the
respondent No.1/Corporation and further resolving to initiate
appropriate action for instituting disciplinary proceedings against him.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the respondents No.1 & 2,
the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No.3/CVC
on 3.9.2014, as also to the respondent No.4. The main grievance of
the petitioner is that the respondents No.1 & 2 are trying to victimise
him by declining to relieve him from his current position so as to
enable him to join the other PSU as the CMD.
6. The present petition was listed for admission on 24.9.2014. On
the said date, as none was present on behalf of the respondent
No.3/CVC, Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate who was present in court, was
requested to enter appearance on behalf of the said respondent and at
his request, the matter was renotified for 26.9.2014. On 26.9.2014,
after hearing the counsels for the parties at some length, a detailed
order was passed. Just to recapitulate the proceedings held on the
aforesaid date, it may be noted that on the said date, learned counsel
for the respondent No.3/CVC had submitted that it had received cross-
complaints from the petitioner and the respondents No.1 & 2 and both
of them were forwarded to the concerned Administrative Ministry,
namely, Ministry of Agriculture for their response. In view of the fact
that the Ministry of Agriculture was considered a necessary and proper
party in the present proceedings and it had not been impleaded as a
respondent, leave was granted to the petitioner to implead the said
Ministry as respondent No.4. At the same time, Ms.H.Hnunpoi,
Advocate, a panel lawyer for the Union of India, who was present in
court, was requested to enter appearance on behalf of the said
Ministry and she was directed to ensure that the CVC receives a
response from the Ministry within two weeks, for it to take a view in
the matter. Simultaneously, respondent No.3/CVC was directed to file
a brief affidavit in the light of the response that would be received by it
from the Ministry.
7. On the aforesaid date, learned counsel for the petitioner had
submitted that the Ministry of Agriculture had already called upon the
respondent No.1/Corporation to complete the inquiry against the
petitioner by 30.9.2014. As he submitted that there was an urgency in
the matter since the petitioner was required to join as CMD of another
PSU on 1.10.2014, it was enquired from the learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 & 2 as to whether they had taken any decision on
the aspect of relieving the petitioner, in terms of the order dated
1.7.2014, issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
8. Mr.Ramji Srinivasan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
respondent No.1/Corporation had stated that in its meeting held on
1.9.2014, the Board of Directors had resolved to institute a full-fledged
inquiry with regard to creation/upgradation of five posts of General
Managers from E6 to E7 level and pending the said inquiry, it was
decided that the petitioner would not be relieved from the services of
the Corporation. Further, it was resolved to apprise the Ministry of
Agriculture about the circumstances leading to initiation of the inquiry.
It was however not denied by the learned counsel for the respondent
No.1/Corporation that the Ministry had addressed a letter dated
25.9.2014 to the respondent No.2, advising the Corporation to
complete the inquiry against the petitioner, in terms of its letter dated
2.9.2014, by 30.9.2014 and in case a decision is taken to delay his
relieving or to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him, then the
Corporation was asked to consult the respondent No.3/CVC in that
regard. A copy of the letter dated 25.9.2014 handed over by learned
counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.
9. In view of the contents of the letter dated 25.9.2014 addressed
by the Ministry of Agriculture to the respondent No.1/Corporation, it
was directed that in the event, the respondent No.1/Corporation takes
a decision not to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner, then he should be relieved by 30.9.2014. With the
aforesaid directions, the matter was posted for 29.10.2014, to await
the affidavit of the respondent No.3/CVC.
10. Today, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 states that
the petitioner has been relieved by the respondent No.1/Corporation
w.e.f. 30.9.2014. As for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner, it is submitted that the respondent
No.1/Corporation has referred the matter through proper channel, to
the respondent No.3/CVC and the first stage advice is awaited by the
respondent No.1/Corporation.
11. On the last date of hearing, since learned counsel for the
respondent No.3/CVC had stated on instructions that the
Administrative Ministry, namely, the Ministry of Agriculture is seized of
the cross complaints submitted by the petitioner and the respondent
No.1/Corporation and a response was awaited from the said Ministry,
the respondent No.4/Ministry was directed to ensure that the
information sought by the CVC should be forwarded to it within two
weeks.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4/Ministry of Agriculture
informs the court today that the Ministry has not received any queries
from the CVC and therefore, the question of replying thereto does not
arise.
13. Mr.Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/CVC confirms
the fact that the respondent No.1/Corporation has approached the CVC
for obtaining first stage advice and submits that necessary action shall
be taken by the CVC in that regard expeditiously.
14. Mr.Singla, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that a detailed representation against the impugned action of
the respondents No.1 & 2 has already been submitted by the petitioner
to the respondent No.4/Ministry of Agriculture. Though he draws the
attention of the court to a representation dated 3.9.2014 addressed by
the petitioner to the respondent No.3/CVC, he is unable to point out
any document to substantiate his submission that a complaint on the
same lines was submitted by the petitioner to the respondent
No.4/Ministry of Agriculture.
15. The petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Administrative
Ministry, i.e., Ministry of Agriculture with a complaint against the
respondents No.1 & 2. As and when the petitioner submits a
complaint to the respondent No.4/Ministry of Agriculture in line with
his representation dated 3.9.2014 already pending at the end of the
respondent No.3/CVC, respondent No.4/Ministry of Agriculture shall
consider the same and take an appropriate decision thereon in a time
bound manner, in accordance with law. Thereafter, the said decision
shall be communicated in writing to the petitioner as expeditiously as
is possible, and preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt
thereof.
16. Coming to the second relief sought by the petitioner which is for
issuance of directions to the respondent No.3/CVC to decide his
representation dated 3.9.2014(Annexure I) and take action against the
respondents No.1 & 2, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/CVC
assures the court that the CVC shall take steps to obtain a response
not only from the respondent No.4/Ministry of Agriculture, being the
Administrative Ministry, but also from and the respondents No.1 &
2/Corporation, particularly since the respondent No.1 has approached
it for seeking the first stage advice for initiating disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent
No.3/CVC shall communicate its decision to the respondent
No.4/Ministry of Agriculture, preferably within eight weeks.
Respondents No.1 & 2 and the respondent No.4/Ministry of Agriculture
are directed to ensure that they take expeditious steps to furnish all
the relevant information to the CVC as desired by it.
17. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the action/inaction on the part
of the respondents, he shall be entitled to seek his legal remedies in
accordance with law.
18. The petition is disposed of, along with pending application.
(HIMA KOHLI)
OCTOBER 29, 2014 JUDGE
mk
