Delhi High Court
Dr Samir Kumar Das vs Union Of India And Ors. on 7 February, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: February 07, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 407/2018 & C.M. 1750/2018
DR SAMIR KUMAR DAS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, Advocate
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC and
Mr. Sumit Rajput, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Memorandum of 27th November, 2017 (Annexure P-1) proposes to
hold an inquiry against petitioner under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972 for inflicting major penalty is assailed in this petition on the ground
that petitioner has been already removed from service on 1 st December,
2016 and so, petitioner cannot be proceeded against under the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972.
2. It is submitted by petitioner's counsel that petitioner is covered by
Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and is
eligible for contributory provident fund, gratuity and hence, CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 are not applicable to petitioner. In response to the
impugned Memorandum of 27th November, 2017 (Annexure P-1),
W.P.(C) 407/2018 Page 1
petitioner had sent e-mail of 13th December, 2017, which has been
responded to by respondent- Union of India vide communication of 26th
December, 2017 (Annexure P-14) requiring petitioner to submit a reply to
the impugned Memorandum/ Charge-Sheet, which is also assailed in this
petition.
3. The precise submission of petitioner's counsel is that petitioner is
covered by Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952 and Employees'(Conduct, Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 2005
(Annexure P-10) of respondent-FCI Aravali Gypsum & Minerals India
Limited. Learned counsel for petitioner maintains that there is no
provision in the aforesaid Rules (Annexure P-10) permitting initiation of
departmental proceedings after tenure of petitioner has ended.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Memorandum of 27 th
November, 2017 (Annexure P-1), respondent-UOI's communication of
26th December, 2017 (Annexure P-14) and the material on record, I find
that the stand taken by petitioner in its Communication of 12 th December,
2017 (Annexure P-12) regarding applicability of CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972, goes to the root of the matter. Upon finding the impugned response
(Annexure P-14) to be unsatisfactory, Respondent- Union of India is
directed not to insist upon filing of reply to the impugned Memorandum
of 27th November, 2017 (Annexure P-1) till this vital issue is properly
addressed by it vide a reasoned order. It is made clear that if respondent-
Union of India comes to a conclusion that petitioner cannot be proceeded
against under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, then it be also considered if
petitioner can be proceeded against under The CCS (Conduct) Rules,
W.P.(C) 407/2018 Page 2
1964. Before proceeding further, the fate of petitioner's Communication
of 12th December, 2017 (Annexure P-12) be made known to petitioner, so
that petitioner may avail of the remedy, as available in law, if need be.
5. With aforesaid directions, this petition and application are disposed
of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 07, 2018
r
W.P.(C) 407/2018 Page 3
