Delhi High Court
Director, All India Institute Of ... vs Sanjiv Chaturvedi & Ors. on 16 September, 2016
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Dated: 16th September, 2016.
+ W.P.(C) 8089/2016
DIRECTOR, ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate.
versus
SANJIV CHATURVEDI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Respondent No.1 in person.
Mr.Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with
Mr.Ajay Kalra and Ms.Vinitha,
Advocates for R-2/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
Caveat Nos.805-806/2016
Since the caveator/respondent has entered appearance, the caveats
stand discharged.
C.M.No.33537/2016 (Exemption)
Exemption granted, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8089/2016 and C.M.No.33536/2016 (stay)
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 17 th August, 2016
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
"the Tribunal") by which the Tribunal has quashed the memo dated 7th
W.P.(C) 8089/2016 Page 1 of 9
January, 2016 and order dated 30th March, 2016 passed by the petitioner
herein.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/AIIMS submits that the
respondents had approached the Tribunal and had made various prayers in
the O.A. Counsel further submits that when the matter came up for hearing
on 17th March, 2016 and as noted by the Tribunal in the impugned order
itself, time was sought by the respondents No.3 & 4 (before the Tribunal) to
file reply to the amended O.A. Time was also sought by respondents No.1 &
2/Union of India (before the Tribunal) to file their reply. Counsel for the
respondent No.3 had made a grievance that they had not received a copy of
the amended O.A. as also copy of M.A. No.1893/2016. Counsel submits that
while the Tribunal allowed time to file reply to the respondents-AIIMS
(including petitioner herein and others), the prayer of the petitioner
(respondents herein) to quash memo dated 7th January, 2016 and order dated
30th March, 2016 was without granting an opportunity of hearing and
without waiting for the pleadings to be completed. It is submitted that the
order of the Tribunal is bereft of any reasoning and thus is liable to be
quashed.
3. The respondent, who appears in person, submits that the petitioner
had filed their reply before the Tribunal and the petitioner has not disputed
the fact that prior to issuing memo dated 7th January, 2016, no show cause
notice nor any opportunity of hearing was granted to the respondent. In these
circumstances the respondent submits that the memo dated 7th January, 2016
and the subsequent order dated 30th March, 2016 of rejecting his appeal are
patently illegal and thus the Tribunal rightly quashed the aforesaid two
orders.
W.P.(C) 8089/2016 Page 2 of 9
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
respondent, who appears in person.
5. To appreciate the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner,
we reproduce the order dated 17th August, 2016, which reads as under:-
"17.08.2016
M.A./100/1893/2016 SANJIV CHATURVEDI
O.A./100/1342/2016 V/S
M/O HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
ITEM NO:9
FOR APPLICANTS(S) ADV. : Applicant in person
FOR RESPONDENTS(S) ADV.: Shri Hanu Bhaskar for R-1 & 2 -
UOI
Shri B.P. Gupta with Shri A. K. Singh
for R-3
Shri R. K. Gupta for R-4 & 5
Notes of Order of The Tribunal
The Registry
Heard the applicant in person and the learned
counsel on behalf of the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 & 5 states
that they need two weeks‟ time to file reply to the
amended O.A.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 -
UOI also seeks two weeks‟ time to file their reply.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 states
that they have not received copy of the amended
O.A. as well as MA 1893/2016.
5. Applicant is direted to served a copy of the
amended O.A. and MA to the counsel for respondent
No.3. Time is allowed for filing reply to
respondents- AIIMS and UOI.
6. Admittedly, the orders dated 07.01.2016 and
30.03.2016 passed by the respondents to the
W.P.(C) 8089/2016 Page 3 of 9
applicant with copies to other concerned Ministries
including Chief Secretary, Uttarakhand is without
issuing a show cause notice to him. This being
against the principles of natural justice. Both these
orders are quashed.
7. Through MA 1893/2016, the applicant has
prayed that the Reporting Officer - the Deputy
Director, AIIMS, Reviewing Officer - Director,
AIIMS and Accepting Officer - President, AIIMS be
restrained from writing his APAR. On this prayer,
order has already been passed on 01.06.2016 that if
the respondents No.6, 7 and 8 make any entry in
ACR for the year 2015-16, that shall be subject to
the outcome of the O.A. and there is no need for
reconsideration.
8. The applicant, however, drew my attention to
order dated 02.06.2016 of the Hon‟ble High Court
in CWP No. 4426/2016, in which one Shri Asheem
Srivastav had filed the writ petition and the Hon‟ble
High Court had directed that till further orders, the
ACR of the petitioner for the year 2015-16 should
not be written.
9. We have gone through the order of the Hon‟ble
High Court dated 02.06.2016. The facts and
circumstances seems to be different. Therefore, the
order dated 01.06.2016 shall remain in operation.
The MA is, accordingly, dismissed.
10. Post the O.A. on 13.09.2016.
Order DASTI.
sd/-
(P.K. Basu)
Member (A)
6. Since the order dated 17th August, 2016 does not give any background
as to what was sought to be quashed and what was the grievance of the
applicant in the O.A. or the response of the respondents, we also deem it
W.P.(C) 8089/2016 Page 4 of 9
appropriate to reproduce the memo dated 7th January, 2016, which reads as
under:-
"07.01.2016
ALL INDIA INSITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi -29
No.F.6-96/2012-Estt.I Dated: 07 JAN 2016
MEMORANDUM
Sub:- None observance of Discipline by Sh. Sanjiv Chaturvedi,
Deputy Secretary, AIIMS.
*******
The Director places on record its displeasure with his
insubordination, indiscipline and lack of work ethic during winter
session of Parliament 2015.
A copy of the memo should be kept in the personal file of the officer
for consideration for his APAR for the period 2015-16.
The issues with approval of the competent authority.
sd/-
(LALIT ORAON)
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (DO)
Sh. Sanjiv Chaturvedi
Dy. Secretary,
AIIMS
Copy To:
1. The Secretary
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Environment & Forests,
New Delhi.
3. The Chief Secretary, Uttrakhand.
4. PPS to Director/PS to DD (A)
W.P.(C) 8089/2016 Page 5 of 9
7. We may note that after the memo of 7th January, 2016 was issued, the
respondent made a comprehensive representation on 11th January, 2016
running into 5½ pages which representation was also rejected by order dated
30th March, 2016, which has also been quashed by the Tribunal, which reads
as under:-
"ALL INDIA INSITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi -29
No.F.6-96/2012-Estt.I(Main File) Dated: 30 MAR 2016
ORDER
The Director AIIMS had placed on record his displeasure on
insubordination, indiscipline and lack of work ethic of Sh. Sanjiv
Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary AIIMS during the winter session of
parliament 2015 vide memorandum of even number dated 07.01.2016.
Sh. Sajiv Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary, AIIMS had written to
Director AIIMS on 11.01.2016 threatening the administration that the
memorandum may be withdrawn failing which he would resort to
appropriate legal proceedings against Director and Deputy Director
Administration in personal capacity for which the whole responsibility
would be that of Director AIIMS.
The letter of Sh. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary, AIIMS
has been examined by the Institute in consultation with Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare. The representation of Sh. Sanjiv
Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary, AIIMS has been rejected.
The President AIIMS has upheld & reiterated the displeasure
memorandum of the Director AIIMS issued on insubordination,
indiscipline and lack of work ethic of Sh. Sanjiv Chaturvedi during the
winter session of Parliament 2015.
President, AIIMS has further directed that this may be sent to
the Secretary, Ministry of Health Family Welfare and Cadre
Controlling Authority.
This issues with approval of President AIIMS.
sd/-
(CHAKARVARTHY E.V.S.)
ADMINITRATIVE OFFICER (DO)
Sh. Sanjiv Chaturvedi
Dy. Secretary, AIIMS,
New Delhi - 110 029
Copy to:
1. Shri B. P. Sharma,
Secretary (Health),
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhavan,
NEW DELHI.
2. Shri Ashok Lavasa,
The Secretary,
Ministry of Environment & Forests,
NEW DELHI.
3. Shri Shatrughan Singh,
Chief Secretary,
Uttarakhand, Dehradun
PPS to Director/PS to DD (A) ."
8. We may also take into account that the respondent herein had
approached the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-
"a. To quash the Memorandum no.06-96/2012-ESTT.I dated
07.01.2016, along with subsequent order number 6-96/2012-
Estt.I dated 30.03.2016, issued by respondent institute, being in
violation of principle of natural justice, bereft of any reason
and the specific instruction/incident giving rise to the said
orders.
b. To restrain the present incumbent respondent nos. 6, 7 & 8 from
acting as accepting authority, reviewing authority and reporting
authority respectively for the purpose of writing of APAR for the
financial year 2015-16 in view of their extreme personal mala
fide/malice against the applicant, as elaborated from para 4.3-
4.21 and to direct the respondent no.1 to notify appropriate
authority for the purpose of evaluation of APAR of the applicant
for the financial year 2015-2016.
c. To direct respondent no.1 to take appropriate action against
respondent no.7 and 8 for issuing the said Memo in violation of
Principles of Natural Justice and for their various omissions
and commissions mentioned in para 4.2-4.21 for which CBI has
already indicated them explanation has been sought by
vigilance wing of DoPT".
9. The respondent submits that there was absolutely no bar in deciding
the O.A. in part and granting relief as this relief was granted on the basis of
admission made by the petitioner herein (respondent before the Tribunal)
and there is no bar in law for the same.
10. While principally we find the submissions of the respondent to be
correct, but in the facts of the present case we are unable to comprehend the
manner in which the Tribunal has passed the order dated 17 th August, 2016.
In case the Tribunal had reached a conclusion that the order was being
passed on the basis of admission, the Tribunal ought to have given at least
some background of the matter as the reading of the said order would show
that the order does not even reflect the nature of dispute between the parties,
the prayer made by the respondent herein and in what manner the
admissions were made by the petitioner herein before the Tribunal. We may
also notice that admittedly the amended O.A. had been filed and the
Tribunal had granted time to the respondents before the Tribunal to file their
respective replies. The order, in our view, has been passed by the Tribunal in
a great hurry and without recording either the facts or the reasoning.
Accordingly, we quash the order of the Tribunal dated 17th August, 2016 as
far as it relates to its quashing the memo dated 7th January, 2016 and order
dated 30th March, 2016. We make it clear that we have not made or
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
11. We are informed that the matter is next listed before the Tribunal on
7th November, 2016. It would be open for the Tribunal to hear the parties
and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
12. In view of the aforesaid, nothing further remains to be considered in
this writ petition which is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti to the parties.
G.S.SISTANI
(JUDGE)
I.S.MEHTA
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 16, 2016
„dc‟
