Delhi High Court
Arun Kumar Goel vs Union Of India on 10 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: January 10, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 249/2018
ARUN KUMAR GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Mr. Himanshu
Gupta and Mr. Rahul Kukreja, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CSGC with
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Under Secretary
(Vigilance) and Mr. Amindya Bhattachaerjee,
Section Officer (Vigilance)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
C.M.1057/2018 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
C.M.1058/2018
1. Petitioner is an Indian Foreign Service (IFS) Officer, who had
retired on 31st March, 2014 and in this petition, he assails the Sanction
Order of 21st November, 2017 (Annexure P-1) and Memorandum of even
date (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent in vigilance case
No.Q/Vig/843/07/2015, Government of India, Ministry of External
Affairs, Vigilance Unit. As per Sanction Order (Annexure P-1),
petitioner, while serving as Consulate General of India in Sydney, on 10 th
February, 2014, had renewed the Lease of Chancery, then located in level
3, 109 Pitt, Sydney without an exit clause and with 15% increase in the
rent without prior permission of the Ministry concerned, thereby causing
loss of `82,22,500/- to the Government Exchequer. Rule 9 of Central
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the CCS
(Pension) Rules of 1972), mandates that departmental proceedings, if not
instituted while the Government servant was in service, shall not be
instituted save with the sanction of the President of India and institution
of such departmental proceedings shall not be in respect of any event
which took place more than four years before such institution.
2. The question raised in this petition is pertaining to the period prior
to the institution of the disciplinary proceedings i.e. in respect of the
sanction. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Sanction Order
(Annexure P-1) as well as Memorandum (Annexure P-2) are bearing two
dates i.e. 21st November, 2017 and 23rd November, 2017 and it is not
clear on perusal of these two documents i.e. Annexure P-1 & P-2, as to
whether the sanction had preceded the Memorandum or vice versa. It is
pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that these documents i.e.
Annexure P-1 & P-2, are signed by the same officer and from the
impugned Sanction Order (Annexure P-1), it is not clear that the sanction
for institution of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner has been
accorded by the President of India as mandated by Rule 9 of CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972.
3. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent has
produced original file to show that vigilance case against petitioner was
put up before the concerned Minister seeking sanction to initiate the
disciplinary proceedings against petitioner in terms of Rule 9 (b) (i) & (ii)
of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the sanction was duly accorded by the
Minister concerned on 4th August, 2017. Attention of this Court is drawn
to Note 30 to Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965), which provides that having regard to the Transaction of Business
Rules, it is necessary that in case where Disciplinary Authority is the
President, the institution of disciplinary proceedings should be approved
by the Minister concerned. The office notings produced before the court
do reflect that the concerned Joint Secretary had signed the Office
Notings on 21st November, 2017 in the name of the President after
receiving the sanction from the concerned Minister and the Central
Vigilance Commission had approved the Sanction Order (Annexure P-1)
and thereafter Memorandum (Annexure P-2) has been formally issued on
23rd November, 2017. So, the challenge to Sanction Order does not
survive as it is evident that the sanction for institution of disciplinary
proceedings in terms of Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 was duly
accorded in the instant case.
4. Regarding the maintainability of this petition, it is submitted that as
per Section 3 (q) of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,
disciplinary matters come within the definition of 'service matters'. Since
institution of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner relate to the
period when he was in service, therefore, petitioner needs to be relegated
to the Central Administrative Tribunals, Delhi to assail impugned
'Memorandum'.
5. The application is accordingly disposed of while relegating
petitioner to avail of the remedies before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Delhi.
W.P.(C) 249/2018 & CM 1056/2018
In view of order passed in C.M.1058/2018, this petition is disposed
of while negating challenge to Sanction Order (Annexure P-1) and
petitioner is relegated to Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi to
assail the impugned Memorandum (Annexure P-2), if so advised.
Needless to say that this Court has dealt with the validity of the sanction
for institution of disciplinary proceedings and has not dwelt upon
impugned Memorandum (Annexure P-2).
This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 10, 2018
s
