Delhi High Court
Shri Girish Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr. on 1 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 01, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 9555/2017 & C.M. 38886/2017
SHRI GIRISH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Romy Chacko & Mr. Amit A.
Pai, Advocates
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Dev. P. Bhardwaj, Central
Govt. Standing Counsel with Mr. Man Mohan,
Under Secretary, Ministry of Defence
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
ORAL
1. Petitioner is presently working as Director (Bengluru Complex) in
Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL). He had assumed the charge on the post
of Director in Bengluru Complex in BEL on 1st May, 2016. He seeks a
direction to respondents to grant deemed confirmation by virtue of Clause
2(a) of Policy Letter of 31st March, 2011 in this petition.
2. The facts which are not disputed are that prior to petitioner taking
up the assignment of Director, Bengluru Complex in BEL, he was
working as Executive Director in the above said institution and a
preliminary inquiry was initiated against him on the complaints regarding
irregularities in the procurement of Compactors. In the preliminary
inquiry, petitioner was exonerated by the Committee of Corporate
Vigilance of BEL. The said exoneration was accepted by BEL at the time
of petitioner's promotion as Director, Bengluru Complex in BEL. A
vigilance clearance was granted by the Chairman-cum-Managing
Director of BEL on 21st December, 2015 (Annexure P/10), while noting
as under:-
"I wish to further add that Shri Girish Kumar has joined
this Company in 1979 as Deputy Engineer and has risen to
Executive Director position through hard work,
dedication, devotion and excellent performance. The
officer is known to have impeccable Integrity in the
Company."
3. Thereafter, petitioner was appointed as Director in Bengluru
Complex in BEL on 26th February, 2016. Complaint of 16th June, 2017
(regarding irregularities in procurement of Compactors way back in the
year 2014) was received by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC),
which was examined by the CVC and initiation of proceedings for major
penalty was advised by CVC vide its communication of 7th September,
2016 and in pursuance thereto, Articles of Charge were served upon
petitioner on 25th July, 2017, which petitioner has denied vide detailed
reply of 12th August, 2017 (Annexure P/11). Vide Communication of 11th
October, 2017 (Annexure P/12), petitioner has also sought his
confirmation as Director in Bengluru Complex in BEL from Secretary,
Department of Defence production, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi i.e.
the first respondent, in which there is no reference of respondent's
communication of 31st March, 2011 (Annexure P/4), on which petitioner
strongly relies. The existence of respondents' document of 31 st March,
2011 (Annexure P/4) is not disputed and as per this document, the
procedure has been prescribed for confirmation of Board Level
Appointees, which includes Director, Bengluru Complex in BEL.
4. During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this
Court by learned counsel for first respondent that the CVC vide its
communication of 10th August, 2017 has recommended denial of
vigilance clearance to petitioner for confirmation of his tenure. According
to counsel for first respondent, the said recommendation has been put up
before the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC), who is seized of
petitioner's confirmation as Director, Bengluru Complex in BEL and so,
this petition deserves to be dismissed as premature.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of respondents' documents of 31st
March, 2011 (Annexure P/4) and the material on record, this Court is of
the opinion that the entire case of petitioner ought to be placed before the
ACC, who is seized of the matter, so as to ensure that a complete picture
of the case is before the ACC. Petitioner is permitted to send a concise
note with relevant documents to the first respondent i.e. the Secretary,
Department of Defence production, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi
along with Communication of 31st March, 2011 (Annexure P/4)
highlighting the parameters governing confirmation of Board level
appointees, within a week and then, first respondent shall forthwith place
it before the ACC for perusal and consideration. It is expected that ACC
will look into this matter keeping in view the background of this case,
particularly petitioner's exoneration by the Committee of Corporate
Vigilance of BEL, as is evident from Communication of 21st September,
2015 (Annexure P/10) of Chairman-Cum-Managing Director of BEL.
6. With aforesaid directions, this petition and application are disposed
of.
7. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court
Master to counsel representing both the sides to ensure its compliance.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 01, 2017
r
