Deepak Mohan vs Union Of India & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 5711 Del

$~6
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of Decision: 31st August, 2016

+     W.P.(C) 6751/2016
      DEEPAK MOHAN                                       ..... Petitioner
                       Through :       Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate.

                          versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ORS                               ..... Respondents
                    Through :          Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate with
                                       Ms.Isha Bhalla, CGSC for R1 to R3/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the orders dated 11th May, 2016 and 12th July, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('The Tribunal' in short) by which the petitioner had approached the Tribunal in OA 568/2013 seeking a direction to quash the transfer order dated 5 th February, 2013 by which, he was transferred from Technical Officer 'C' from DTRL to Directorate of Planning and Co-ordination, DRDO Head Quarters. The petitioner claims that the order of transfer was passed without assigning any reason and with a malafide intent.

2. The petitioner had also complained that the impugned transfer order had been issued neither in the interest of administration or exigencies of service but in colourable exercise of power of the concerned authority. He submits that the petitioner had been erroneously transferred particularly for the reason that the petitioner did not accept and put his signatures on the inventory list placed on record without necessary physical verification of the same. It was also urged by the petitioner that he was forced to put his signatures on the inventory list dated

2nd May, 2012, despite the fact that he found that out of 136 items, 94 items were not traceable in the lab and the items were not as per the inventory list.

3. Today learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already joined his place of posting and he has instructions not to press this petition. He further submits that the petitioner had made repeated requests to the respondents to provide him the Leave Record, Service Book, Certificate of last drawn pay and a 'No Demand Certificate' however the respondents have failed to hand over the same to the petitioner.

4. Mr. Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been able to obtain a 'No Demand Certificate' from 17 departments barring, the MES department, which has refused to provide the same.

5. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the Leave Record, Service Book and the Certificate of last drawn pay of the petitioner shall be provided to the petitioner on the next date of hearing.

6. As far as a 'No Demand Certificate' from MES is concerned, we may notice that para 8 of the impugned order has already directed that the petitioner shall not be made responsible for any missing items which has already been informed by him to the respondents by letter dated 21 st June, 2012. The relevant paras of the order dated 11th May, 2016 of the Central Administrative Tribunal read as under:

"8. Applicant has categorically pleaded that in future also they may create trouble for him. As far as the plea raised by the Respondents in their reply/counter affidavit at page No.2 para 4 (xviii) is concerned, it has been categorically submitted that the previous works officer on 13.12.2011 has transferred all the files/documents relating to „works and the inventory items from MES and other incl. CCE (R&D) North‟, so being the current Works Officer, the papers to handle the

requirements relating to MES inventory were given to him for follow up. Learned counsel for Applicant states that Applicant will join the new place of posting but he should not be harassed by the Respondents as he had to sign the inventory list.

9. Since the Applicant is enjoying stay in his favour, he should now go and join his new place of posting i.e. DTRL, New Delhi. Respondents are categorically directed that Applicant in any case shall not be made responsible for any missing items which has already been informed by him to the Respondents by letter dated 21.06.2012."

(Emphasis supplied)

7. The observation made in para 8 of the order has not been assailed by the respondents. In view of this, the 'No Demand Certificate' from MES is deemed to have been granted.

8. All the documents will be brought in court on the next date of hearing.

9. This writ petition is disposed on in above terms.

10. List for compliance on 14th September, 2016.

CM No.27750/2016 CM stands disposed of as infructuous.

G.S.SISTANI (JUDGE)

I.S.MEHTA (JUDGE) AUGUST 31, 2016/j