Delhi High Court
Vivek Plawat vs Union Of India & Ors. on 22 January, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 8659/2014 & CM Nos. 19940/14 & 20001/14
% 22nd January , 2015
VIVEK PLAWAT ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prateek Tushar Mohanty, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikram Jetley, CGSC for R-1 &
4.
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Sanjoy Ghose, Adv. for R-2 & 3.
Mr. R.V.Sinha and Mr. A.S.Singh,
Advs. for R-5/CVC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ/direction for directing the
respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Director (Technical) in
the respondent no.2-corporation. The prayer was made because the
W.P.(C) 8659/2014 Page 1 of 4
petitioner has been placed at serial no.1 in the select list of the respondent
no.4 for being appointed as a Director (Technical) of the respondent no.2.
2. The appointments such as in the present case, including of the
petitioner to the relevant post with the respondent no.2, are by the
Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). ACC before it gives
appointment, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has to give
clearance with respect to making the appointment by the ACC.
3. In the writ petition as originally filed the case of the petitioner
was that against the petitioner no departmental proceedings have till date
been initiated and therefore CVC was directed to give the vigilance
clearance.
4. When the writ petition was filed, the matter was under
consideration of CVC and CVC/respondent no. 5 has now filed an affidavit
that it has, subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, tendered its advice
dated 10.12.2014 for initiation of major penalty proceedings against the
petitioner. Respondent no.5 vide its letter dated 30.12.2014 has therefore
advised denial of vigilance clearance to the petitioner for being appointed to
the post of Director (Technical) of the respondent no.2.
W.P.(C) 8659/2014 Page 2 of 4
5. Respondent no.2/employer has therefore now initiated
departmental proceedings against the petitioner and petitioner has been
issued a charge-sheet dated 23.12.2014 for misconduct with respect to
major penalty proceedings.
6. In this view of the matter, no reliefs can be granted in the writ
petition inasmuch as, firstly this Court is not the appointing authority and
which is the ACC. Secondly, ACC itself cannot grant appointment to the
petitioner in this case because CVC has denied vigilance clearance to the
petitioner and has in fact directed initiation of departmental proceedings for
major penalty against the petitioner.
7. There is no challenge in these proceedings to the orders passed
by the CVC denying vigilance clearance qua the petitioner and also for
initiating departmental proceedings or to the action of the respondent no.2 in
major penalty proceedings by issuing the charge-sheet dated 23.12.2014
unless these orders of respondent no.5 are prayed for being quashed and till
they are quashed the petitioner cannot be granted/seek appointment as ACC
will not appoint the petitioner in the absence of vigilance clearance.
Petitioner may also, if so required, have to challenge the departmental
proceedings.
W.P.(C) 8659/2014 Page 3 of 4
8. In view of the above, no relief as prayed, can be granted to the
petitioner. Dismissed.
JANUARY 22, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
