Mallikarjuna Rao Anumala vs Union Of India & Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 882 Del

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 882 Del
Judgement Date : 15 February, 2017

Delhi High Court

Mallikarjuna Rao Anumala vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 February, 2017

$~23
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    W.P.(C) 1286/2017 & CM Nos.5913-14/2017
                             Date of Decision : 15th February, 2017
     MALLIKARJUNA RAO ANUMALA                          ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocate
                      versus
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                             ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Bharathi Raju, CGSC CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):

We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated

2.12.2016 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative

Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short).

2. The petitioner, an officer of the Indian Revenue Services, has been

convicted for offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act') vide judgment dated

2.9.2015 passed by the Principal Special Judge, CBI, Hyderabad. The

petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years

and also pay fine of Rs.6,00,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for 6 months.

3. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad, and on an application being filed, the sentence of

imprisonment has been suspended, subject to furnishing a personal bond in

the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with two sureties of the like amount. The operation

of the judgment of conviction has not been stayed.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid conviction, the respondent, CBDT has

issued a Memorandum dated 4.1.2016 proposing penalty of

removal/dismissal from service under Rule 19(i) of the Central Civil

Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 and giving the petitioner an opportunity to

make representation against the proposed penalty within fifteen days.

5. The petitioner thereafter filed WP(C) No.10475/2016 for stay of

further proceedings, pursuant to the Memorandum dated 4.1.2016. The writ

petition was held to be not maintainable since the petitioner was an

employee of the Central Government. The writ petition was disposed of,

with liberty to approach the Tribunal.

6. The petitioner thereafter filed OA No.3992/2016, which was disposed

of vide the impugned order dated 2.12.2016, wherein, taking a

compassionate view, the applicant was granted two weeks' time to file a

response to the OM dated 4.1.2016, as is clear from the following

observations:-

"3. In response to the aforesaid communication, he made request on 27.09.2016 reiterating his stand for supply of

copies for which he has already approached the authorities under the RTI Act, 2005. He has, in the present OA challenged the aforesaid communication. We do not feel that it is a case where intervention of this Tribunal is required. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that at least the applicant may be allowed one opportunity to file his response.

4. Taking a compassionate view, we allow the applicant to file his representation/response to the OM dated 04.01.2016 within two weeks from today failing which, the authorities are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. With these observations this OA stands disposed of."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the letter

dated 1.2.2016 written by the petitioner, which reads as under:

"I received the above referred memorandum dated 04.01.2016 asking me to submit reply/representation within 15 days. The aforesaid memorandum was received by me on 18.01.2016 at 5:30 P.M.

It is submitted that since the matter is highly complicated being complex legal issues are involved, I request for the following documents and personal inspection for submission of effective reply/representation.

1. The order sheet copies of entire file F.No.C-14011/1/2009-V&L.

2. The correspondence in the file through various Government authorities.

3. Copies of all relevant documents/information including the entries/comments/letters of DIT (Vigilance), DGIT (Vigilance), Member (P&V), Chairman CBDT, Revenue Secretary MOS(R ) and the Hon'ble Union Finance Minister.

4. All the relevant file copies of which are annexed to the F.No.C- 14011/1/2009-V&L.

5. The undersigned may be allowed to inspect the file F.No.C- 14011/1/2009-V&L at your convenient date, time and place. Hence, I may be allowed at least 1 month time after I get the above requested documents etc. to submit aforesaid representation as a matter of principles of natural justice. It is requested not to take any adverse view in the meanwhile."

8. The petitioner is apparently marking time, stalling and trying to delay

the decision, pursuant to the Memorandum dated 4.1.2016. It has been more

than a year, since the Memorandum dated 4.1.2016 was issued in view of

the conviction of the petitioner under the PC Act. The scope and ambit of

inquiry under the second proviso to Article 311(2) in case of conviction is

very limited and restricted to issues and ground elucidated by the

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram

Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 and Satyavir Singh & Ors. v. Union of India &

Ors., (1985) 4 SCC 252. In such cases, a departmental inquiry is not

required to be held.

9. In view of the aforesaid position, we are in agreement with the

findings recorded by the Tribunal that there is no reason or ground to