Delhi High Court
Sh. Rajender Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 13 April, 2015
Author: V.P.Vaish
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 3582/2015
% 13th April, 2015
SH. RAJENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.L.S.Chaudhary with Mr.Vijay
Chaudhary and Ms.Pratibha Gupta
Advocates.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Ferida Satarawala, Advocate for
R-1.
Mr.Sandeep Prabhakar with Mr.Amit
Kumar and Mr.Vikas Mehta,
Advocate for R-2.
Mr.Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with
Ms.Prerna Shah Deo and Mr.Waize
Ali Noor, Advocates for R-3.
Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Certain petitioners, if I can say so, insist on abusing the process of the
law. The present petitioner is one such petitioner. Against the petitioner
departmental enquiry is going on because the petitioner for obtaining
employment had submitted a fraudulent ST certificate and hence got
employment by fraudulent representation.
W.P.(C) No.3582/2015 Page 1 of 4
2. There was also initiated another departmental proceeding against the
petitioner and in which an identical issue which is raised in this case of the
enquiry officer being over-aged was raised, and when the petitioner on this
issue filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3105/2013 titled as Sh.Rajender
Kumar Vs. M/S BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. & Anr., the same was decided
against the petitioner on 13.5.2013 as per the judgment which reads as
under:-
" 1. No one is present for the petitioner on the second call
although on the first call counsel for the petitioner urged only one
point in support of the writ petition wherein prayer was made to
change the Enquiry Officer. The point which was urged was that
Enquiry Officer cannot be more than 70 years. Averments in this
regard have been made in para 22 of the writ petition and which
read as under:-
"22. That the C.V.C. circular letter No. 98/MSC/23 dated the
16th September 1999 and GI department of personal training
O.M.No. 134/4/99-AVD-1 dated 7th April 2003 and O.M.No.
142/20/2008-AVD-1 dated the 27th July 2009 published under
Government of India decisions under rule 14 of the Central
Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
in Swamy's Compilation of CCS, CCA Rules where in it is
mentioned that a retire Govt. Officer referred to as enquiry
officer should not be more than 70 years of the age on 1st July
of the year his empanelment and should be in sound health
physically and mentally. This aspect was put to the deputy GM
(HR) on 28.01.2013 the response to which was not in positive."
2. I may note that the petitioner has not filed any of the circulars
which are relied upon, but counsel for the respondent has brought
the circular dated 16.9.1999 which provided the age of the Enquiry
Officer to be 70 years. Counsel for the respondent has however
brought another circular dated 25.3.2003, by which, all other earlier
W.P.(C) No.3582/2015 Page 2 of 4
circulars were superseded and which circular dated 25.3.2003 does
not provide any age of the retired officer for being appointed as the
Enquiry Officer. It is specifically mentioned in the circular dated
25.3.2003 that all earlier circulars on the subject stand superseded
by this circular dated 25.3.2003. There is no age limit which is
prescribed for Enquiry Officer in the circular dated 25.3.2003 and
therefore, since any retired officer can be appointed as an Enquiry
Officer, I do not find any merit in the stand of the petitioner that
Enquiry Officer cannot be more than 70 years of age.
3. I may note that respondent no.1 is a private company and
petitioner was an employee of the erstwhile Delhi Vidut Board
(DVB) and no doubt terms and conditions of employees such as the
petitioner had to be governed by the then applicable terms and
conditions of the Central Government with respect to conducting
enquiries, however, since there is now a circular dated 25.3.2003,
which does not place any age bar but entitles all retired officers to
be appointed as Enquiry Officers, there is no merit in the petition,
which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their
own costs."
3. The same issue is once again raised by the petitioner in this petition
that the Enquiry Officer cannot be more than 70 years. However, in view of
the judgment dated 13.5.2013 in W.P.(C) No.3105/2013 reproduced above,
the case of the petitioner has no merits. It is undisputed position that the
petitioner did not challenge the judgment dated 13.5.2013 in W.P.(C)
No.3105/2013, and which hence has become final.
4. It is thus clear that the petitioner is using all sorts of tactics to keep on
delaying the departmental proceedings, and which were initiated quite some
time back on 08.10.2013 against him i.e around 1½ years back.
W.P.(C) No.3582/2015 Page 3 of 4
5. Counsel for the petitioner argues that the Enquiry Officer is biased,
however, vague and general averments of bias without substantiating the
same to the satisfaction of this Court does not deserve lenient consideration
from this Court, and accordingly this argument is also without any merit
whatsoever and is hence rejected.
6. In view of the above, this petition being an abuse of the process of the
law, I have no option especially in view of the earlier judgment binding the
parties, to dismiss the present petition with costs of Rs.15,000/- to be
divided equally between the appearing respondents.
APRIL 13, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
KA
