Delhi High Court
Shri Vishwa Bandhu vs Central Vigilance Commission And ... on 3 March, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 7730/2015
% 3rd March, 2017
SHRI VISHWA BANDHU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. I.S. Bakshi, Advocate.
versus
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. A.S.
Sinha, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. A.K. Gautam, Advocate for
R-2.
Mr. A.K. Behera, Advocate for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) No. 7730/2015 and C.M. Appl. No. 15155/2015 (for stay)
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-
"i) A Writ of Certiorari or any Writ, Order or Direction calling for the
records of the case;
ii) A Writ of Mandamus for issuing appropriate directions to the
Respondent No.2 for filing the Reply of the concerned Officers along with
his Comments to Intensive Examination Report Dt. 21.06.2012 to the
Respondent no. 1, in accordance with law and the Guidelines of Respondent
No.1 and for further directions to Respondent No.1, to thereafter, complete
its Investigations and to conclude the Inquiry pursuant to the IE Report Dt.
21.06.2012, to its logical end, as per law.
iii) A Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction for
Quashing/Setting aside the Dismissal Order Dt. 29.04.2013 of the Petitioner,
issued by the Respondent No.3 and any/all proceedings conducted by it in
relation thereto.
iv) Any other or such further Order (s), as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the Petitioner and against the
Respondents."
2. The third relief sought as reproduced above is for setting
aside the order of the disciplinary authority which has imposed the
punishment upon the petitioner of dismissal from services.
3. Admittedly, against the order of the disciplinary authority
a statutory appeal lies and petitioner has already filed this statutory
appeal which is pending. When this statutory appeal will be decided
by the appellate authority two things can happen. Firstly, it is possible
that the appeal may be accepted and the petitioner may be exonerated
and in such a case actually this writ petition need not at all have been
filed because there would be no punishment order upon the petitioner.
The second eventuality which can take place is that the appellate
authority's order will uphold the punishment order passed by the
disciplinary authority, and in which case the order of the disciplinary
authority will merge in the order of the appellate authority. Therefore,
petitioner will have to challenge the order of the appellate authority,
and which till date has not been passed. The present writ petition is,
therefore, pre-mature, inasmuch as, the statutory appeal filed by the
petitioner is pending decision.
4. Accordingly, this writ petition is not maintainable because
it is pre-mature, inasmuch as, the statutory appeal filed by the
petitioner is pending disposal.
5. Prayer no. (ii) is a prayer of the petitioner claiming that
the entire disciplinary proceedings must fail, inasmuch as, they have
been conducted in violation of the requirement of not obtaining the
first stage and second stage CVC reports. This would be a ground
which would be available to the petitioner in the statutory appeal which
is filed by the petitioner and pending before the appellate authority.
Therefore, once again till the statutory appeal is decided, this writ
petition challenging the order of the disciplinary authority dated
29.4.2013 is pre-mature.
6. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is
dismissed as being pre-mature. Since the present writ petition is
disposed of C.M. Appl. No. 15155/2015 also stands disposed of.
MARCH 03, 2017/AK VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
