N K Wadhwa vs Central Government Employees ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 2539 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Date of Order: April 24, 2018

(i)     +     W.P.(C) 6437/2017 & CM 26685/2017
(ii)    +     W.P.(C) 6438/2017 & CM 26686/2017
(iii)   +     W.P.(C) 6439/2017 & CM 26687/2017

(i & ii) N K WADHWA
(iii) A K RAJPUT                                         .....Petitioners
                              Through: Mr. Ashish Nischal and Mr. Arun
                              Nischal, Advocates

                         Versus

        CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE
        HOUSING ORGANISATION & ANR               .....Respondents
                    Through: Mr. P.S. Datta, Ms. Anwesha Saha
                    and Mrs. Shobha Bhisht, Advocates

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                              ORDER

(ORAL)

1. In the above-captioned three petitions, vide impugned Memorandums of 22nd February, 2010 and 8th March, 2010, departmental proceedings stood initiated against petitioners. In the case of petitioner-N K Wadhwa [in W.P.(C) 6437/2017], Inquiry Report of 10th February, 2015 indicts him of the charges framed against him, whereas Inquiry Report of 27th March, 2015 also indicts petitioner-N K Wadhwa [in W.P.(C) 6438/2017] and holds him guilty in respect of one of the charges and clarifies that remaining four charges stand partly proved. In the case

of petitioner-A.K. Rajput [in W.P.(C) 6439/2017], Inquiry Report of 12th March, 2015 indicts him with clarification that out of five charges framed against him, three charges have been proved whereas remaining two charges have been partly proved. When the charges were levelled against petitioner-N.K. Wadhwa [in W.P.(C) 6437/2017], he was functioning as Officiating Director (Finance) and while petitioner-N.K. Wadhwa [in W.P.(C) 6438/2017] was working as Director (Administration), he was charged with dereliction of duty. Although the Inquiry Report was received in the year 2015, but till date, Disciplinary Authority has not decided as to whether any action is to be taken against petitioners, as they have already retired.

2. During the course of hearing, petitioners' counsel had drawn attention of this Court to Office Memorandums of 31 st January, 2018 and 23rd April, 2018 to indicate that clearance of Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'CVC') is awaited.

3. Upon hearing and on perusal of material on record, it is deemed appropriate to call upon CVC to decide within four weeks from today whether to give clearance or not, in order to facilitate passing of appropriate orders by the Disciplinary Authority. After receiving response from CVC, the Disciplinary Authority of respondent shall pass appropriate orders in light of the Inquiry Reports received, within a period of six weeks and convey its fate to petitioners within a week thereafter, so that release of retiral benefits to petitioners can be undertaken with expedition, if such an eventuality arises.

4. CVC be apprised of this order forthwith to ensure its compliance.

5. With aforesaid directions, the above-captioned petitions and the applications are disposed of.

Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE APRIL 24, 2018 s