Delhi High Court
Madhup Mohta vs Union Of India & Anr on 25 January, 2017
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6631/2015
Date of Decision : 25th January, 2017
MADHUP MOHTA ..... Petitioner
Through Dr. Ashok Dhamija, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC and
Mr. Sushil Kumar Panda and Mr.
Harsh Ahuja, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
This writ petition impugns the order dated 26.03.2015 passed
by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby OA
No.2477/2013 filed for setting aside/quashing, the charge sheet
/charge memorandum No. Q/Vig./843/02/2010 dated 08.11.2012
issued by the respondents for initiating disciplinary proceedings, has
been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Central Bureau
of Investigation had carried out investigation on identical charges and
had submitted the closure report in FIR No. RC-DAI-2008-A-0022
dated 23.06.2008. Therefore, the Tribunal should have quashed the
charge memorandum.
3. The closure report submitted by the Central Bureau of
Investigation was accepted by the Special Judge -03, Central Bureau
of Investigation Court vide order dated 26.11.2011. However, this
order records that as per the investigation conducted, the quotations of
M/s Panalink Infotech Ltd. were found to be forged, although the
same was on the letter head of the firm. The documents in question
were sent to the GEQD, Shimla, albeit the findings remained
inconclusive. Evidence could not be found to establish that the
petitioner and one Rakesh Kumar had any knowledge that the
quotation of M/s Panalink Infotech Ltd. was forged.
4. The respondents on the other hand have referred to the order
dated 30.11.2011 in respect of another FIR No.RC-DAI-2008-A-
0021/2008.
5. We are not required to go into the factual aspects, evidence and
comparative merits.
6. The criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are
distinct and separate. The mode and method of proving the charges in
the criminal case and allegations in the departmental proceedings are
different. The Evidence Act is applicable to criminal prosecution and
the principle of "Beyond reasonable doubt" applies. In departmental
proceedings, provisions of Evidence Act do not apply. Further,
principle of probabilities applies.
7. The petitioner in the present case was served with the
memorandum dated 08.11.2012 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil
Service (CCA) Rule 1965. The Articles of Charge read as under:-
"ARTICLE 1
Dr. Madhup Mohta, Director, while functioning as
Director (P&C), in the Indian Council for Cultural
Relations (ICCR), New Delhi, during the year 2005,
colluded with Shri Rakesh Kumar the then DG, ICCR,
and also with M/S Anju Visual, F-1183, Chittranjan Park,
New Delhi, with the object to cause undue favour to M/s
Anju Visuals, by awarding two contracts viz. (i) Audio
visual clips for ICCR website on folk dances of India and
(ii) Audio-Visual clips for ICCR website on Indian Folk
theatres to M/s Anju Visuals, at a total value of
Rs.21,81,960/- @ Rs.10,90,980/- per contract, without
following the open tender procedure, for works with
value exceeding Rs.5.00 lakhs, as required under the
provisions of General Financial Rules, 1963.
By the above act, the said Dr. Madhup Mohta,
Director, failed to maintain absolute integrity and
exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government servant,
thereby violating the provisions of Rules 3 (1) (i) and 3
(i) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-II
Dr. Madhup Mohta, Director, while functioning as
Director (P&C), in the India Council for Cultural
Relations (ICCR), New Delhi, vide his letter dated
10.03.2005, obtained a forged and false quotation from
M/s Panalink Infotech Limited, K-128, Ranjit Sadan,
Mohammadpur, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-16, in
order to cause undue favour to M/s Anju Visuals by
awarding two contracts referred to in Article I, above, to
the said firm, and to merely complete the formality of
having three quotations on paper.
By the above, act, the said Dr. Madhup Mohta,
Director, failed to maintain absolute integrity and
exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government servant,
thereby violating the provisions of Rules3(I) (i) and 3 (1)
(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
8. Along with the said Articles of Charge, the petitioner was also
served with the statement of imputation of misconduct or
misbehaviour in support of the articles of charge.
9. The petitioner may and can rely upon the closure report in
response to the articles of charge. However, we would not go into the
factual aspects and meticulously evaluate the charges levelled against
the petitioner and enter into a debate at the preliminary stage whether
the articles of charge are incorrect. The closure report, by itself, for
the legal position stated in paragraph 6 above cannot foreclose and be
a firm and conclusive answer to the disciplinary proceedings. The
Tribunal in the impugned order has considered the different aspects
and has examined the contention and issues raised, with which we
agree.
10. We clarify that the petitioner has not raised or argued any other
issue.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, we would dismiss the writ petition
and not interfere with the impugned order dated 28.06.2014.
However, we would clarify that this court has not expressed any
opinion on merit. The observation in the impugned order passed by
the Tribunal dated 26.03.2015 should not be construed as recording
findings or observations on merit. The Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary
Authority would independently apply their minds to the allegation and
each contention, without being influenced by the observations made in
this order or the impugned order. Copy of the order be given
dasti, as prayed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
JANUARY 25, 2017
b
