Rajiv Bhasin vs Centre For Develpment Of ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 2477 Del

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 2477 Del
Judgement Date : 13 May, 2019

Delhi High Court

Rajiv Bhasin vs Centre For Develpment Of ... on 13 May, 2019

$~ 2
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of decision: 13.05.2019

+      WP (C) 4808/2019 & CM APPL. 21387/2019

       RAJIV BHASIN                                        ..... Petitioner
                          Through      Mr.V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv. with
                                       Mr.Shashank Shekhar, Adv.

                          versus

       CENTRE FOR DEVELPMENT OF
       TELEMATICS (C-DOT) & ANR                   ..... Respondents
                     Through  Mr.K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Mukul
                              Chandra, Mr.Sandeep Chatterjee &
                              Mr.Anshul Rai, Advs. for R-1.
                              Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Adv. for Mrs.Biji
                              Rajesh, Adv. for R-2.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                          J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby

quashing the letter No.C-DOT/EDR/RGR-ORDER/2019 dated 12.04.2019

and consequently the order dated 25.01.2018 vide which the respondent no.1

had diluted the responsibilities of the Registrar in complete contravention of

the relevant rules.

2. Further seeks direction thereby directing the respondent no.1 not to

issue any letters/orders in furtherance letter dated 12.04.2019 mentioned

above.

3. Also seeks direction thereby directing the Central Vigilance

Commission to initiate an independent enquiry into the vigilance complaint

filed by the petitioner.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner made complaint on

29.01.2018 to Executive Director of respondent no.1 regarding some

irregularities being asked to be done by the petitioner and thereafter almost

same complaint made to the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication

on 31.01.2018. Since there was no action upon the said complaints then the

petitioner made a similar complaint to Chief Vigilance Officer/C-DOT on

05.02.2018. Still, there was no response from any of the authorities

mentioned above, however, the petitioner was put under suspension vide

order dated 12.04.2019 pursuant to decision taken by the C-DOT Project

Board, in its 238th Board Meeting held on 28.03.2019 and 12.04.2019. It is

stated in order dated 12.04.2019 that the Executive Director has decided to

suspend the petitioner with immediate effect and Articles of Charges will be

issued within next 10 days.

5. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the suspension order was issued by the same

Executive Director against whom the petitioner made complaints mentioned

above. Had the petitioner done anything wrong or illegal or contrary to the

rules and procedures, the said Executive Director being a senior officer to

the petitioner, would have taken action immediately if some wrong

allegations made in the complaint dated 29.01.2018. In addition to above, in

the Board meeting dated 28.03.2019, the Executive Director ought not to

have participated for the reason that the petitioner made allegation against

the Executive Director, in his complaint dated 29.01.2018.

6. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel further submits that there were

no basis to issue suspension order dated 12.04.2019, however, it was on the

malice and vindictiveness of the Executive Director in issuing the same.

7. Mr. K.K. Rai, learned senior counsel for the respondents who

appeared on advance notice submits that after the suspension order dated

12.04.2019, the chargesheet has been issued to the petitioner on 26.04.2019

and served on 29.04.2019 and he was asked to file reply to the same. But the

petitioner sought time to file reply and also sought additional documents to

be supplied to him.

8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that at this stage,

since chargesheet is issued, after filing the present petition, therefore, he

does not want to comment upon the chargesheet and argued that on the date

of issuance of the suspension order, there was no material before the Board

against the petitioner.

9. Counsel for the respondents has submitted a brief board resolution

dated 12.04.2019 whereby it is stated that C-DOT Board, in exercise of

powers conferred by clause 3.2.9 of Chapter III under Rule 12 of the Rules

and Regulations of the Bye-Laws for Centre for Development of Telematics,

has decided the following:

"(A) Initiate disciplinary proceedings against Mr.Rajiv Bhasin (Staff No. 5058), Registrar, C-DOT, based on the following findings :

I. Lapses in Service Contracts of C-DOT. II. Willful Insubordination and disobedience of orders. III. Maligning the organization's image and that of its Board Members.

(B) Initiate disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Vivek Tripathi (Staff No. 2446), the then Manager (Admin) and other associated Staff of the respective departments at the time of occurrence of the lapses.

(C) Place Mr. Rajiv Bhasin, Registrar, C-DOT under suspension with immediate effect. Mr. Rajiv Bhasin shall remain under suspension till further orders."

10. Mr.Shekhar has pointed out that though he is not touching the

allegations made in the chargesheet, however, he pointed out that charge

no.7 issued against the petitioner in the chargesheet is only qua the

complaint made against the Executive Director and the chargesheet issued

by the Executive Director itself. Therefore, the Executive Director cannot be

judge of his own cause.

11. The fact remains that the chargesheet has been issued. The petitioner

is asked to file reply to the same.

12. Therefore, I hereby dispose of the present petition giving liberty to the

petitioner to file reply of the chargesheet and on receipt of the reply, the

respondents may take a final decision whether to proceed against the

petitioner or to drop the proceedings.