Raj Pal vs Union Of India And Anr.
2019 Latest Caselaw 5185 Del

$~23
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                Date of Decision: 23.10.2019
+    W.P.(C) 11337/2019
     RAJ PAL                                ..... Petitioner
                      Through : Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate.
                      versus
     UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.                ..... Respondents
                      Through : Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC for
                                UOI.

CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

                             JUDGMENT

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) rejecting a preliminary objection raised by the petitioner with regard to maintainability of inquiry proceedings on the ground that the initiation of inquiry and the charge sheet were not approved by the Disciplinary Authority.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned CGSC for Union of India appears on an advance copy and accepts notice.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

WP(C) No. 11337/2019 page 1 of 4

5. In this case, the learned Tribunal has rejected the contention of the petitioner on two grounds : firstly, on the ground of delay, in relation to which the Tribunal has taken into account that the inquiry was initiated in the year 2012 and this objection has been raised for the first time in the year 2018; secondly, the Tribunal has accepted the submission made by counsel for the respondents that approval for initiating inquiry proceedings against the petitioner was sought by the Disciplinary Authority and that it was granted.

6. On the other hand, the attention of this court is drawn to the reply received on a query made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in support of his contention that in fact, the initiation of inquiry proceedings was not approved by the Disciplinary Authority.

7. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned CGSC for the respondents submits that a reading of the reply would in fact show that the charge sheet was duly approved. He submits that to the RTI query raised by the petitioner on 25.09.2017, the respondents replied as follows :

"Subject: RTI application dated 25.09.2017 received from Shri Raj Pal, under RTI Act, 2005.

Sir,

Please refer to your RTI application dated 25.09.2017 received through O/o CGA to this Department on the subject cited above and to say that the query wise information sought by you vide RTI application dated 16.10.2017 is as follow:

WP(C) No. 11337/2019                                      page 2 of 4
 Sl. Information sought for                        Reply thereto
No.

(i)    Name with designation of the highest       Shri C R Sundara
       authority approving the initiation of      Murti,     CGA       the
       departmental proceedings which were        highest       authority
       initiated in terms of charge sheet dated   approving            the
       03.01.2012                                 initiation            of
                                                  departmental
                                                  proceedings      which
                                                  were initiated in terms
                                                  of charge sheet dated
                                                  03.01.2012.

(ii)   Name with designation of the highest       Hon'ble       Finance
       authority approving the draft charge       Minister, Shri Pranav
       sheet which culminated into the            Mukherjee the highest
       issuance of charge sheet dated             authority approving

03.01.2012. the draft charge sheet which culminated into the issuance of charge sheet dated 03.01.2012.

(iii) The date when appointment of IO and Appointment of IO PO was approved by the competent and PO was approved authority and name with designation of on 16.05.2012 by the authority approving the Hon'ble Finance appointment of IO and PO. Minister, Shri Pranav Mukherjee, being disciplinary authority.

                                                  Subsequently, IO was
                                                  on deputation; hence,




WP(C) No. 11337/2019                                        page 3 of 4
                                                   appointment          of
                                                  another     IO     was
                                                  approved             on
                                                  12.04.2013           by
                                                  Hon'ble        Finance
                                                  Minister     Shri     P
                                                  Chidambaram being
                                                  disciplinary authority.

8. In the above circumstances, we dispose of this matter leaving the objection raised by the petitioner to be raised at the appropriate stage in case an order of punishment is passed.

9. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a retired employee and the inquiry initiated against him has been pending since the year 2012, it would serve the ends of justice if the inquiry is concluded within four months from today. We however make it clear that the petitioner will cooperate with the Inquiry Officer.

10. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

                                                       G.S.SISTANI, J


                                   ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
OCTOBER 23, 2019
j




WP(C) No. 11337/2019                                       page 4 of 4