Delhi High Court
Samir Kumar Das vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: June 23, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 2209/2017, CM No. 9667/2017
SAMIR KUMAR DAS
..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Samir Kumar Das, petitioner in
person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with
Mr. Raghav Nagar, Adv.
for UOI/R-1, R-2, R-4, R-5 & R-6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
1. The present petition has been filed by t h e pet itioners wit h t he
following prayers: -
"It is, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to take this present Writ Petition into the
consideration and issue the appropriate writ or order or
directions:
a) Issue writ in nature of certiorari quashing the order
dated 01.12.2016 and extract note dated 25.11.2016 as
arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional; and/or
b) Issue writ in nature of mandamus/certiorari quashing
the office memorandum dated 15.12.2016 issued
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 1
Respondent No. 1 & 2 as illegal and unconstitutional;
and/or
c) Issue writ in nature of mandamus directing the
Respondent No. 1 & 2 to reinstate the petitioner as the
Chairman & Managing Director of FCI Aravali Gypsum
& Mineral India Limited in terms of circulars dated
31.03.2011, 13.05.2011, 28.06.2011 & 30.10.2014 with
effect from 01.12.2016 with full back wages and benefits
and/or
d) Issue writ in nature of mandamus to the Respondent
No. 1 & 2 to pay full pay and allowances along with
interest considering the petitioner as on duty from the
date of illegal removal till the date when one would have
superannuated/retired in normal course i.e. on attaining
age of 60 years. The present petitioner would be attaining
age of 60 yrs on 27.10.2019; and/or
e) Pass any other further orders as is deemed to be fit and
proper in the discharge of justice in favour of the
petitioner."
2. In effect, the Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner t o set
aside the office order dated December 01, 2016, whereby on the
completion of tenure of the petitioner as the Chairman an d Managing
Director ('CMD', for short), of F.C.I. Aravali Gypsum and Minerals
India Limited ('FAGMIL', for short), he was relieved of his du t ies and
for a direction that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 reinstate the petitioner as
CMD, FAGMIL, the respondent No. 4 in this petition.
3. The facts as noted from the petition and submitted by the
petitioner are that while he was working at Project an d Development
India Limited ('PDIL', for short), the Public Enterprises Selection Board
('PESB', for short), under the administrative control of the Department
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 2
of Fertilizers advertised the post of CMD, FAGMIL. He forwarded h is
bio-data to PESB along with vigilance clearance from PDIL. He was
selected and consequent thereto, PESB and the Ministry of Ch emicals
and Fertilizers, after taking clearance from the Central Vigilance
Commission ("CVC", for short), through a presidential directive vide
letter No. 90/2/2010-HR-I dated March 03, 2011, appointed the
petitioner as the CMD of respondent No. 4. He was allowed to retain his
lien in PDIL for a period of five years with effect from March 07, 2011,
vide the PDIL office memorandum dated March 07, 2011 in consonance
with the Department of Public Enterprises ('DPE', for short) O.M. No.
23/19/98/GL-014/DPE dated January 13, 1999.
4. It was stated by the petitioner that the appointment of the
petitioner as CMD of respondent No. 4 was for 5 years and the said
period was extendable till superannuation on t he basis of t h e crit eria
fixed by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet ('ACC', for short),
Department of Personnel and Training ('DoPT', for short), DPE and
PESB.
5. He stated that as per ACC rules issued on March 31, 2011, all
proposals where incumbents meet the benchmark and the Ministry
decides to recommend extension shall be referred to the ACC for
approval not later than two months before the sch eduled expiry of t h e
term, and that in a Schedule 'C' company, extension can be gran ted by
the Cabinet Minister, but for non-extension/termination, the ACC is t h e
competent authority.
6. It was contended by the petitioner that he is entitled for
extension beyond the period of five years because according to the
PESB letter dated May 13, 2011, the date of superannuation of the
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 3
petitioner is October 31, 2019. The petitioner further stated that on June
16. 2015, he submitted self-appraisal documents and requ ested for t h e
extension of service till his superannuation. He also st at ed t hat as per
PESB letter dated June 28, 2011, an overall performance score of 80 ou t
of a maximum 100 marks, is the bench mark fixed for ext en sion of t h e
tenure of CMD/MD, without reference to the PESB. He has been
awarded an overall special performance score of 95 m arks ou t of 100,
by the competent authority, i.e., the Department of Fertilizers.
However, his service was cut short by the office order dated December
01, 2016 whereby he was relieved of his post.
7. The petitioner submitted that the approval of the Cabinet
Minister for the impugned order was sought on the basis of an ext ract
note dated November 25, 2016 which reads that the petitioner is relieved
on the ground that: -
"Irregularities were committed to the extent that L1 party i.e.,
M/s Raj Gypsum was denied contract and job was offered to
another party which had not even bid. After the examination of
the matter, it has been decided with the approval of the
disciplinary authority to recommend to the CVC issuance of
charge sheet for inflicting major penalty against the officers,
including CMD, FAGMIL."
8. The petitioner stated that the contention of there being malice on
part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 gained support from an article published
on a website namely www.indianmandarins.com, on November 17,
2016 wherein it was said that the tenure of service of the petitioner
might be cut short. He further contends that t he said in formation was
published on the website a week before the preparation of t h e extract
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 4
note on November 25, 2016 and fifteen days before the impugned order
dated December 01, 2016.
9. It was also stated by the petitioner that he had filed a writ
petition W.P.(C) 11400/2016 before this Court seeking relief in the form
of extension of his tenure and that it was only during the hearing of t h e
said petition, on December 02. 2016 that he was informed of the
impugned order.
10. The petitioner further submitted that a complaint had been filed
by M/s Raj Gypsum Udyog, an unsuccessful party in a tender/bid t o t he
Chief Vigilance Officer ("CVO", for short), of respondent No. 4, who in
turn vide letter dated March 03, 2015 directed to put the tender process
on hold. The petitioner further stated that the above-mentioned case of
denial of contract to M/s Raj Gypsum Udyog has already been
examined, and Director Vigilance, namely Mr. Neeraj Singhal, who was
also Director, PSU (Respondent No. 2) and vide his letter dated January
27, 2016 had informed that no substance was fou nd in t he allegations
and accordingly the case was closed, with the approval of the CVC. It is
the case of the petitioner that thus, the order dated December 01, 2016,
is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice an d t he legal
principle "nemo debet bis vexari, si constat curice quod sit pro una iti
eadem causa", i.e., causing double jeopardy, and is in violation of
Article 20(2) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11. The petitioner stated that as per CVC Circular No. 01/01/2015
dated January 23, 2015, if a complaint received by t h e CVO contains
specific and verifiable allegations of corruption or a vigilan ce an gle, it
must first be sent back to the complainant for owning/disowning.
Relevant portion of the circular reads as under: -
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 5
"2. As regards complaints received directly by the CVOs of
Ministries/Departments/Organisations, if a complaint contains
specific and verifiable allegations of corruption/vigilance angle
and it is proposed to take cognizance of such complaints, the
complaint will be first sent to the complainant for
owning/disowning, as the case may be. If no response is received
from the complainant within 15 days of sending the complaint, a
reminder will be sent. 15 days after sending the reminder, if still
nothing is heard, the said complaint may be filed as
pseudonymous by the CVO of the
Ministry/Department/Organisation concerned. CVOs are
advised that in no case, any enquiry/investigation be initiated on
complaints without receipt of confirmation from the complainant
on any complaint."
12. It was also submitted by the petitioner that the CVO of
respondent No. 4, upon receiving a letter on March 02, 2015 from
respondent No. 1 to investigate the matter, sent a letter for m aintaining
the status quo with respect to the tender process, in total violation of t h e
above-mentioned circulars/mandatory guidelines. It is t h e case of t h e
petitioner that as per the DOPT and CVC guidelines, t he complaint of
Ms/ Raj Gypsum Udyog is pseudonymous as no confirmation was
received before the initiation of the investigation an d t hat t he en quiry
itself is void ab initio because due process of law had not been followed.
13. The petitioner also submitted t hat t he respondent Nos. 1 & 2
have shown duplicity in following the mandatory procedure set by t h e
DOPT/CVC circular which is applicable to all Ministries/Departments
as per DOPT circular No. 104/76/2011-AVD-01 dated October 18,
2013, wherein guidelines have been prescribed regarding the handling of
complaints in Ministries/Departments, the same reads as below: -
"i. No action is required to be initiated on anonymous
complaint, irrespective of nature of allegations and such
complaint needs to be simply filed.
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 6
ii. The complaint containing vague allegations could also be
filed without verification of identity of the complainant.
iii. If a complaint contains verifiable allegations, the
administrative department may take cognizance of such
complaint, with the approval of competent authority to be
designated by the ministry as per, distribution of work, in such
cases, the complaint will be first sent to the complainant for
owning/disowning as case may be. If no response is received a
reminder will be sent after waiting for 15 days after sending
the reminder, if nothing is heard the said complaint may be filed
as pseudonymous by the ministry."
It was contended by the petitioner that as per DOPT and CVC
guidelines, the instant complaint of M/s Raj Gypsum Udyog is
pseudonymous as no confirmation had been received before initiation of
the investigation of the complaint.
14. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 can n ot, by
any stretch of their imagination be permitted to say that it is optional for
them to follow the CVC procedure as mentioned above. In t his regard,
the petitioner has placed reliance upon the ju dgement of t h e Su preme
Court in Union of India and Anr. vs. Vineet Ohri, 2009 SCC OnLine
Del 1881. It was further stated by the petitioner that it is apparent from
the pleadings that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have at one end chosen n ot t o
follow the prescribed procedure of sending t he complaint back t o t he
complainant owning/disowning in the case of M/s Raj Gypsu m Udyog,
whereas in the complaint of one Harish, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 did
follow the procedure, seeking confirmation from the so-called
complainant. The petitioner further stated that the vindictive, m ala fide
approach of the then Secretary (Fertilizer), namely Sh . Vijay Sh anker
Pandey is exposed from the very action that despite the above complaint
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 7
being treated pseudonymous, he, in gross violation of t h e m andatory
guidelines of the CVC, went ahead beyond the limit permissible in law.
15. That apart, the petitioner stated that Rakesh Sh arma, owner of
M/s Raj Gypsum Udyog had also filed four writ petitions before the
High Court of Rajasthan, regarding non-opening of t h e price bid, bu t
they were subsequently withdrawn. The petitioner also stated that
Mr. Kumar of M/s. Raj Gypsum Udyog had t hreatened h im with dire
consequences if his technical bid was not approved by him in his
capacity as the approving authority. The same had been brou ght t o t he
knowledge of the Department of Fertilizers and was recorded in the
counter affidavits filed by respondent No. 4 in all four writ petitions
mentioned above. It is the case of the petitioner that since the Writ
Petitions filed by M/s Raj Gypsum Udyog were discontinued, their
complaint on the same matter is infructuous and without su bstance. In
support of his argument, the petitioner has referred to the ju dgement of
the Supreme Court in Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath
Narichania and Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3745.
16. The petitioner submitted that there is no vigilan ce case again st
the petitioner as the vigilance case for a Board level executive shall only
be from the date of CVC order the initiation of vigilance case an d t here
is no such order against the petitioner.
17. It was the contended by the petitioner that the ACC, vide let t er
dated March 31, 2011 stated that all proposals wherein t he in cumbents
meet the benchmark and the ministry decides to recommend ext ension,
shall be referred to the ACC for approval at least 2 m on ths before t he
scheduled expiry of the tenure of the incumbents. It was also su bm itted
by the petitioner that the circular dated March 31, 2011 further speaks of
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 8
the cases wherein the incumbents meet the benchmark, bu t h ave som e
other issues such as vigilance etc., for which the Ministry/Department is
not inclined to recommend extension, the same shall be referred t o t h e
ACC for consideration six months before the sch eduled expiry of t h e
tenure of the incumbents.
18. The petitioner has further submitted that, as per t h e circu lar of
the ACC dated October 30, 2014, the services of a Board level employee
cannot be terminated on completion of his final term if he/she is du e for
extension, without specific orders of the ACC, subject to him/her bein g
free from the vigilance angle and meeting the prescribed performance
parameters. It was also contended by the petitioner that as per poin t (ii)
of the said letter, the department was to t ake a con scious decision on
whether to extend the term of a Board level appointee at least on e year
in advance of completion of his initial t erm, so t h at adequate t ime is
available for the department to obtain CVC clearance. It is also st at ed
therein that taking into account the vigilance st atus as on t h e dat e six
months before the terminal date of initial appointment, t he CVC m ay
give its clearance within two months of receiving the reference from t he
administrative ministry. The limit of two months will include time taken
for back references, CBI reference/enquiry etc.
19. It was also stated by the petitioner that as per Point V (a) of t h e
aforementioned letter dated October 30, 2014, in cases where CVC
clearance has been delayed beyond the prescribed timeline, m erely on
account of procedural reasons and where there is no denial of clearance,
the case of extension could be processed without waiting any further. It
was the contention of the petitioner that from t he reading of t h e said
circular, it is evident that there was a responsibility cast upon the
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 9
administrative ministry for processing the case at least one year in
advance and to communicate it to the incumbent. In support of his
argument, the petitioner has referred to the judgement of t h is Court in
A.K. Verma vs. Union of India and Ors., 2004 SCC OnLine Del 282
where it was held that, the right to be considered for appointment would
include the right of continuation or reappointment.
20. According to the petitioner, the impugned order dated December
01, 2016 could be looked, at as one of com pulsory ret irement, as t h e
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 with an intent t o scuttle down t he m andatory
guideline stated in circular dated October 30, 2014, have u sed t he t erm
"relieved upon of completion of 5 years of tenure". It was st ated by t h e
petitioner that the said order is prima facie mala fide for the reason t hat
the petitioner had already completed his tenure of five years on March
07, 2016. He also stated that his lien in PDIL, issued March 07, 2011 in
consonance with DPE OM No.23/19/98/GL-014/DPE expired on March
6, 2016 leaving him without a parent cadre to return to on non-extension
of tenure of the post of CMD, FAGMIL. It was his contention that if t h e
respondent No. 1 was not considering the ext ension of service of t h e
petitioner beyond March 07, 2016, they ought to have relieved the
petitioner so that he could have served for t h ree m ore years u ntil h is
superannuation as the General Manager, PDIL.
21. It was further contended by the petitioner that despite his t enure
as CMD of respondent No. 4 having expired on March 07, 2016, he was
not relieved of his charge and by way of implied conduct on t he part of
respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the petitioner was permitted to continue in h is
post for a further period of nine months, and that it was on ly wh en t he
petitioner had sought redressal of his grievance by way of this writ
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 10
petition, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 maliciously passed t he order dat ed
December 01, 2016 which was communicated to the petitioner only
during the course of hearing of the petition. According to him, the
implied conduct on the part of respondent Nos. 1 an d 2 gave rise t o a
legitimate expectation that his tenure would be extended. In this regard,
he has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in
H.M. Singh vs. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2014 SC 1128.
22. It was the case of the petitioner that in light of adm itted fact of
there being no CVC recommendation till date given to respondent No. 1
for initiating departmental/penalty proceeding, the impugned order
arbitrarily relieving the petitioner is bad in law an d fu rt her t he ext ract
note dated November 25, 2016 is also bad in law when the same is read
along with letter dated January 27, 2016.
23. It was also stated by the petitioner t hat in t he absen ce of an y
communication from the CVC that the petitioner is not clear from
vigilance angle, it was not within the scope and jurisdiction of
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to say the petitioner is not clear from vigilance
angle. In support of this argument, he has relied upon to the ju dgement
of the Supreme Court in Educ. Cons. (I) Ltd. SC/ST Empl. Wel. Asso.
Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 271.
24. The petitioner placed reliance upon a report by the
Parliamentary Committee on Pensions dated February 06, 2015,
wherein, according to the petitioner, in respect to a sim ilar fact, it was
observed and emphasized that in a situation where a board level
appointee has been removed maliciously without following due
procedure of law, the aggrieved is entitled to compensation for t he loss
suffered mentally and socially. The Committee recommended the
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 11
concerned ministry to release full pay and allowances along with interest
considering the petitioner as on duty, from the date of illegal removal till
the date when one would have superannuated/retired in normal course.
25. A counter affidavit to the petition has been duly filed by the
respondent Nos. 1,2, 4, 5 and 6. It is the case of the respondents that t he
tenure of the petitioner was not extended beyond December 01, 2016
due to a lack of vigilance clearance and he was relieved from the post of
CMD, FAGMIL on December 01, 2016 with the approval of the
competent authority (Minister-in-Charge), and that t he Department of
Fertilizers has taken up the matter for ex-post facto approval of the ACC
vide O.M. dated December 15, 2016, which was granted on July 30,
2017.
26. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on beh alf of t h e
respondents submitted that FAGMIL is a schedule 'C' Cen tral Pu blic
Sector Enterprise ("CPSE", for short) under the administrative control of
the Department of Fertilizers. The competent authority to approve board
level appointments in schedule 'C' and 'D' CPSEs is t h e Min ister-in-
Charge, provided the Ministry does not deviate from PESB's
recommendation. It was further submitted by Mr. Kumar that, in t erms
of para 3 (ii) of ACC's instructions dated April 03, 2001 read with para 5
of ACC's instruction dated March 31, 2011, proposals for
extension/non-extension in tenure of Board level appointees in Schedule
'C and 'D' CPSEs are required to be referred to t h e ACC on ly in cases
where the concerned department proposes to deviate from PESB's
recommendations.
27. Mr. Kumar further stated that the then Secretary (Fertilizers) had
advised that the proposal for non-extension of the tenure of the
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 12
petitioner may be processed in anticipation of ACC approval.
Accordingly, the matter was forwarded to the ACC for ex-post facto
approval and the same was received on July 13, 2017.
28. It was submitted by Mr. Kumar that, in relation to the m atter of
extension/non-extension of the petitioner, views of t h e ACC h ad been
obtained where the ACC had referred to para (3)(d) of its circular dat ed
March 31, 2011 which reads as under: -
"All proposals, wherein the incumbents meet the benchmark, but
have some other issue such as vigilance etc for which the
Ministry/ Department is not inclined to recommend extension,
shall be referred to the ACC for consideration six months before
the scheduled expiry of tenure of the incumbent."
29. Mr. Kumar then referred to para (5) of th e above said circu lar
with respect to scope of the circular. Para (5) reads as under: -
"While these guidelines relate to appointment/confirmation and
extension of CMD/ MD/ Functional Directors of schedule A and
B PSEs, the same would apply to those belonging to schedule C
and D except that the final decision would be taken by the
Ministry, as present, and no reference to the ACC would be
needed."
30. It was submitted by Mr. Kumar that a complaint was received in
Department of Fertilizers on February 16, 2015 from M/s Raj Gypsu m
Udyog, Jaipur, Rajasthan, alleging corruption an d irregularity by t h e
management of FAGMIL in the tendering process for m ining gypsum.
Subsequently, CVO, FAGMIL was advised to send a detailed report on
the complaint vide the Department of Fertilizers' letter dated March 03,
2015. A detailed report was sent by the CVO, FAGMIL vide h is let ter
dated June 23, 2015. Mr. Kumar stated that t he com plaint of M/s Raj
Gypsum Udyog dated February 16, 2015 was forwarded by Vigilan ce
Division, Department of Fertilizers, to the CVO, FAGMIL vide let ter
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 13
No.1/3/2015-VIG dated March 03, 2015 with the request to con duct an
inquiry in the matter and submit the preliminary report at an early dat e
to take further necessary action. He also stated t hat wit h regard t o t he
CVC circulars dated November 25, 2014, January 23, 2015 an d March
07, 2016, the complaint was lodged by M/s Raj Gypsu m Udyog, who
was an existing contractor of FAGMIL, on their let terhead. Th ey h ad
lodged complaints in the past and therefore, it was not a case of
anonymous/pseudonymous complaint.
31. Mr. Kumar submitted that after consideration of the matter,
lapses had been found on the part of Tender Committee which
recommended non-admission of bids of M/s Raj Gypsum Udyog on t he
grounds of not having the relevant experience certificate required for the
tender and non-execution of previous work assigned in another m atter.
The GM, FAGMIL and the CMD, FAGMIL had also been found
responsible for approving the recommendations of the Tender
Committee and that a report in the prescribed proforma vide letter dated
July 01, 2016 had been sent to CVC to seek its first stage advice in t he
matter. Mr. Kumar further stated that the matter had been considered in
consultation with CVC, and the Secretary (Fertilizers) vide his note
dated November 25, 2016 had recommended for the imposition of major
penalty on the petitioner and other officers involved in the matter.
Secretary (Fertilizers) had also recommended for issuance of charge-
sheet to the petitioner and other officers asking t hem t o explain t heir
conduct. According to Mr. Kumar, the recommendations of the
Secretary (Fertilizers) have been approved by the disciplinary au thority
i.e., the Minister (Chemicals & Fertilizers). It was further submitted that
an interim communication was also sent to t he CVC vide let t er dat ed
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 14
December 01, 2016 with regards to the imposition of major pen alty on
officers of FAGMIL.
32. Mr. Kumar also stated that on August 05, 2015, the Department
of Fertilizers initiated the proposal for extension/non-extension of t h e
petitioner. In this regard, HR-I Section of FAGMIL, vide its O.M. dat ed
November 19, 2015 solicited CVC clearance in respect of the petitioner,
for extension/non-extension of his service beyond March 07, 2016. In
response to HR-I Section's O.M. dated November 19, 2015, Department
of Fertilizers vide letter dated November 26, 2015 had sent the
particulars to the CVC, seeking clearance. Mr. Kumar stated, that
included the particulars of two cases, one wherein the CVC had
recommended closure and another case regarding t he com plaint from
M/s. Raj Gypsum Udyog to the Department of Fert ilizers wh erein t he
CVO, FAGMIL in his later report dated June 23, 2015 has fixed
responsibility on the petitioner. According to Mr. Kumar, the Secretary
(Fertilizers) vide his note dated November 25, 2016 proposed t hat t he
tenure of the petitioner should not be ext ended an d t hat h e sh ould be
relieved of his duties with immediate effect, in anticipation of ACC
approval. The proposal of the Secretary (Fertilizers) was approved by
the Cabinet Minister on November 28, 2016. Mr. Kumar contended t hat
it was absolutely baseless to say that the approval of Cabin et Minister
was taken at his back date.
33. It was also stated by Mr. Kumar that the CVC vide O.M dat ed
March 14, 2017 had advised for initiation of major penalty proceedings
against the officers below board level and while considering the
relieving of the petitioner on December 01, 2016, had advised the
Department of Fertilizers to take appropriate act ion under t he extant
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 15
rules against the petitioner. It was further submitted t hat t he advice of
the CVC has been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority.
34. Mr. Kumar further stated that guidelines of the CVC for
handling anonymous/pseudonymous complaints were strictly followed.
The complaint of M/s. Raj Gypsum Udyog was neither anonymous n or
pseudonymous. Mr. Kumar further submitted that as per CVC circu lar
dated March 07, 2016 the opinion of the learned Attorney Gen eral was
sought and the same is furnished as under:
"Material/evidence gathered during the
investigation/verification of anonymous complaint when the
action was prohibited on such complaints or where such enquiry
was initiated without the approval of CVC, can be utilized for
further initiation of disciplinary proceedings on
misconducts noticed in such verifications/enquiry"
It was contended by Mr. Kumar that therefore, there is no
violation of the mandatory guidelines of the CVC.
35. Mr. Kumar further stated that in regard to the Writ Petitions filed
by M/s Raj Gypsum Udyog in the High Court of Rajasthan, the petitions
were dismissed as withdrawn, on request by the petitioner therein, wit h
liberty to avail appropriate remedy, if any, under general law an d t hat
they continued to seek remedy from the Department of Fertilizers. It was
further stated by Mr. Kumar that therefore it is not true that the
complaint was infructuous.
36. It was submitted by Mr. Kumar that the case referred t o in t he
Parliamentary Committee Report dated February 06, 2015 (of on e Ms.
Rita Kunur) is entirely different from the present case. Ms. Rit a Ku nur
was granted extension in service of one year from Novem ber 03, 2000
to November 02, 2001 and her services were terminated on June 22¸
2001 i.e., four months and ten days before the scheduled expiry of h er
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 16
tenure. It was stated that in the present case no extension was accorded
to the petitioner beyond March 07, 2016 and his matter was pending for
want of vigilance clearance and therefore, opinion of the Parliamentary
Committee provided in the Report is not applicable in the instant case.
37. Mr. Kumar further stated that the petitioner h ad n ot su bmitted
any request for relieving him to join his parent Department before t he
expiry of his lien and that he was not forcibly made t o serve FAGMIL
beyond March 07, 2016.
38. Mr. Kumar also submitted that the petitioner was relieved in
terms of Presidential Order No. 90/2/2010-HR-I dated March 03, 2011
on completion of five years term and that further extension is not a right.
According to Mr. Kumar, the Department may or m ay n ot ext end t he
services as per applicable guidelines. He further stated that per circu lar
dated October 30, 2014 of ACC, the Department is not bound to extend
the services, if the incumbent is not free from vigilance angle.
39. It was submitted by Mr. Kumar that, as per ACC circu lar dat ed
March 31, 2011, the final decision for extension of
CMD/MD/Functional Director belonging to schedule C & D CPSE
would be taken by the Ministry and no reference to t he ACC wou ld be
needed, and therefore the non-extension of the petitioner was approved
by the competent authority, i.e., the Minister-in-Charge of the
administrative ministry on November 28, 2016 and no approval of ACC
was needed. He also submitted that the proposal for extension/non-
extension of the tenure of the petitioner was in consideration in the
Ministry seven months before the scheduled expiry of his tenure.
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 17
40. It was also contended by Mr. Kumar that there is n o differen ce
between approval and ex-post facto approval which may affect the
legality of the decision.
41. Mr. Kumar stated that there is no reference in an y circular t hat
board level appointees involved in vigilance cases should be given
extension automatically, till they get final advice from CVC. Mr. Kumar
also submitted that, giving extension beyond n ormal t enure t o board
level appointees and taking action in vigilance cases are t wo different
issues and it is not obligatory on the part of the Government to give
further extension if it is not inclined to do so. It was fu rt her st ated by
Mr. Kumar that however, action in vigilance cases is to be t aken as per
the advice of CVC, and that in the instant case, t he CVC vide it s OM
dated March 14, 2017 had furnished the advice for major penalty
proceedings against officers below board level and while considering
the reliving of the petitioner on December 01, 2016 had advised t o t ake
appropriate action against the petitioner. It is the contention of Mr.
Kumar that, had it been mandatory on the part of t h e organization t o
seek CVC advice before terminating the services of t h e pet itioner, t he
CVC would have raised that issue in the communication dated March
14, 2017.
42. Mr. Kumar submitted that yet another complaint dated Ju ne 30,
2016 with regard to recruitment of officers in FAGMIL is also pending,
in which the name of the petitioner h as also been m entioned. It was
contended by Mr. Kumar that two complaints were pending again st t he
petitioner and the disciplinary authority had approved major penalty
proceedings and the issuance of charge sheet against him. It was
contended by Mr. Kumar that vigilance clearance is one of t h e prim ary
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 18
requirements for extension of tenure of a Board level employee, and
since the petitioner was not clear from vigilance angle, the Ministry h ad
decided not to extend the petitioner's tenure. The matter was
communicated to the CVC and the ACC and ex post fact o approval of
the ACC was sought. The ACC vide its letter dated July 3, 2017 has
granted ex-post facto approval to the order relieving the petitioner from
his post as CMD, FAGMIL.
43. Mr. Kumar submitted that advice was sought from the
Department of Legal Affairs ('DOLA', for short) whether ch arge sh eet
can be issued against the petitioner for initiation of major penalty
proceedings, as he had already been relieved from his post. On
November 16, 2017, DOLA tendered their advice recommending t he
initiation of departmental proceedings as per Ru le 9(2)(b) of t h e CCS
(Pension) Rules, and accordingly charge sheet was issued to the
petitioner on November 27, 2017. The petitioner filed a writ pet it ion
W.P.(C) 407/2018 in this Court challenging the issuance of charge
sheet. The court inter-alia stated that the Un ion of In dia t o com e t o a
conclusion whether the petitioner can be proceeded against, under
CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and if not, to also consider whether the
petitioner can be proceeded against, u nder t he CCS(Conduct) Rules,
1964. It was stated by Mr. Kumar that as per the advice of DOLA
received vide letter dated March 05, 2018, the matter had been referred
to DoP&T and DPPW. He further submitted t hat it was eviden t from
these facts that as on the date of relieving, t he petitioner was n ot free
from vigilance angle.
44. A rejoinder was duly filed by the petitioner to the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents. In addition to reiterating his
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 19
contentions from the writ petition, t he pet itioner h as placed reliance
upon the Annual Report of the Central Vigilance Commission, placed
before the President of India, the relevant part of which reads as under: -
"The advisory role of the Commission extends to all the
matters on vigilance administration referred to it by any
Department/Organisation of the Central Government. It
is mandatory on the part of the organisation to seek
Commission advice before proceeding further in a
matter where earlier a report was called for by the
organisation"
45. He contended that when mandatory instructions or gu idelines
have been issued by the CVC to the extent that a department or an
organization ought not to proceed further unless the CVC h as t endered
its advice, the duplicity of Respondent No. 1 & 2 is reflected from t heir
own admission that the first stage advice from the CVC was sou ght for
vide letter dated July 01, 2016, to which the CVC replied, calling u pon
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to place before it, the proposed
action/report, which it intends to take against t he pet itioner and ot her
officials. It was further stated by the petitioner t hat respondent Nos. 1
and 2 have admitted that they have forwarded the proposed action/report
which they intended to take against the petitioner and other officials on
December 01, 2016, therefore, without having awaited t he decision of
the CVC on the first stage advice, it was not open/permissible for/t o t he
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pass the illegal order dat ed December 01,
2016.
46. It was submitted by the petitioner that the prior approval of ACC
was required for the non-extension of the petitioner's tenure. However,
against prescribed rules, ex-post facto approval of ACC has been
obtained. The petitioner contended that it is a settled legal preposition
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 20
that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a lat er
stage, that is subsequent action/development cannot validate an act ion
which was not lawful at inception, for the reason that illegality strikes at
the root of that order, and that it would be beyon d t he com petence of
any authority to validate such an order. To buttress h is arguments, t he
petitioner relied upon the judgement of this Court in Ajay Kumar Joshi
and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., MANU/DE/3081/2011 wherein it
was inter alia held that a post facto concurrence wou ld n ot validate a
promotion.
47. The petitioner stated that, post facto approval given by the ACC
after seven months of an illegal order will have n o effect as t h e order
itself is ab initio void. In this regard he placed reliance upon the
judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa and Ors. vs.
Mamata Mohanty, (2011) SCC 436.
48. It was further submitted by the petitioner that t he Min ister h ad
not passed any order and had just put his signature without applying h is
independent mind and without verification of the facts. In support of his
argument, the petitioner referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court
in Chairman-cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd. and Ors. vs. Ananta Saha
and Ors. (2011) 5 SCC 142. He also relied upon t he ju dgment of t h e
Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Thakre 1995 Supp. 2
SCC 407 and the judgment of this Court in the case titled Dr. Sahadeva
Singh v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 2623/2010, decided on April 20,
2010, in support of his contention that there should be strict compliance
of executive orders / rules / circulars.
49. On the aspect of stigmatic termination without h olding in quiry
or even by serving the charge sheet / show cause notice, he relied u pon
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 21
the judgment reported as Surinder Pal Kaul v. State of Punjab, (2005)
1 LLN 954 and State Bank of India v. Palak Modi, (2013) 3 SCC 607.
On the aspect of evasive and non-specific denial in written statement h e
relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Anant
Construction v. Ram Niwas, ILR 1995 II Delhi 76.
50. Having heard the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the record, the issue which arises for
consideration in this petition is whether the impugned order relieving the
petitioner as CMD of FAGMIL and not extending / renewing his
appointment on the said post is justified.
51. The submissions made by the petitioner can be su mmed u p as
under:
(i) That he is entitled to extension as CMD FAGMIL
beyond the period of five years post March 07, 2016 as h is dat e
of superannuation was October 31, 2019.
(ii) As per letter of PESB June 28, 2011 the overall
performance by securing 80 out of maximum marks of 100 is the
benchmark to be achieved for extension and t he pet itioner h as
achieved 95 marks.
(iii) The petitioner is fit from Vigilance angle, inasmuch
as even the complaint of M/s Raj Gypsu m Udyog h as already
been examined by Director (Vigilance), who vide his letter dated
January 27, 2016 directed closure of the case an d t h e case was
closed with the approval of CVC.
(iv) As per CVC circulars dated January 01, 2015 an d
January 23, 2015, if a complaint is received with specific
allegations, then the same needs to be sent back to the
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 22
complainant for owning / disowning and in this case no
confirmation was received before initiation of investigation.
(v) The writ petitions filed by M/s Raj Gypsum Udyog
have been withdrawn and as such all the complaints have
become infructuous and without any substance. In terms of
circular dated March 31, 2011, all proposals wherein the
incumbents meet the benchmark but have some other issue su ch
as vigilance etc. for which the Ministry/Department is not
inclined to recommend extension, same shall be referred to ACC
for consideration six months before the schedule expiry of t h e
tenure.
(vi) As per the circular dated October 30, 2014 the
services of a Board level employee cannot be terminated on
completion of his initial term, if h e / sh e is du e for ext en sion
without specific orders of ACC.
(vii) The impugned order dated December 01, 2016 is an order
of compulsory retirement as the services of the pet itioner h ave
been scuttled prematurely, otherwise the petitioner would h ave
superannuated in the year 2019.
(viii) Despite the first term expiring on March 07, 2016, the
petitioner was continued on the post of CMD for n in e m onths
and it is only when the petitioner sought redressal of his
grievance in this Court that the respondents have passed the
impugned order.
(ix) Till such time, there is a communication from t he
CVC that the petitioner is not clear from the vigilance angle it
was not within the scope and jurisdiction of the respondent
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 23
Nos.1 and 2 to say that the petitioner is not clear from vigilance
angle.
(x) The prior approval and not post facto approval of
ACC is required for non-extension of the petitioner's tenure. The
same will not validate the action which is not lawful.
52. Having noted the submissions made by the petitioner, I m ay at
the outset state that the appointment let ter of t he pet itioner as CMD
FAGMIL dated March 03, 2011 clearly stipulated that the appointment
is for a period of five years or till the dat e of su perannuation or u nti l
further orders, which ever event occurs earlier. The said stipulation
contemplates that the tenure of the petitioner m ay n ot n ecessarily be
continued till superannuation, as sought to be contended. It can be
either for five years or even for a lesser period.
53. Having said that, I may also state, the submissions made by t h e
petitioner as noted above are primarily on t he prem ise t hat t here was
only one complaint filed against him by M/s Raj Gypsum Udyog wh ich
having been closed, and no other complaint being pending which can be
an impediment for the petitioner to continue on the post of CMD
FAGMIL, is fallacious. As has been contended by Mr. Rakesh Kumar,
and also stated in the affidavit filed by the respondents to t he rejoinder
affidavit filed by the petitioner that there were two more complaints
filed against the petitioner, viz. (i) complaint dated February 16, 2015 by
the same company M/s Raj Gypsum Udyog; an d (ii) com plaint dat ed
June 30, 2016 by one Harish with respect to recruitment of officers
made in FAGMIL, post 2010 and manipulations of TA Ru les, wh ich
show that the petitioner was not free from vigilance angle, is appealin g.
The matter regarding M/s Raj Gypsum Udyog was sent to CVC vide
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 24
letter dated July 01, 2016 to seek first stage advice in t he m atter. Th e
CVC vide its letter dated July 19, 2016 had stated that in order to
examine the matter, proposed penalty proceedings against each Officer
and bio-data of all accused Officers may be furnished to the
Commission. On November 25, 2016, recommendation was m ade for
initiating major penalty proceedings against the petitioner and other
Officers of FAGMIL which was approved by the Minister In-charge,
i.e., Disciplinary Authority on November 28, 2016. The matter was
again sent to the CVC with the draft charge sheet. It transpired t hat t he
CVC vide its OM dated March 14, 2017 had furnished its advice for
taking action against the petitioner under the extent rules. In the
meantime, on December 01, 2016 with the approval of the Minister, t he
petitioner stood relieved from FAGMIL.
54. Suffice to state, on November 27, 2017 a charge sheet under
Rule 9(2)(b) of the CCS Pension Rules 1972 was issued to the
petitioner. It appears that the said charge sheet was ch allenged by t h e
petitioner in this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) 407/2018.
The writ petition was disposed of on February 07, 2018 directing Un ion
of India to consider whether the petitioner can be proceeded u nder t he
Conduct rules. It is not known as to what decision has been taken by t h e
Union of India.
55. Be that as it may, the aforesaid reveals t hat on December 01,
2016 the petitioner was not free from vigilance angle as a decision was
already taken by the Disciplinary Authority t o in itiate m ajor penalty
proceedings against the petitioner and as such his tenure could not h ave
been extended further. The plea of the petitioner was that till such time,
the CVC takes a decision on any complaint made against the petitioner,
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 25
the petitioner cannot be said to be unfit from vigilance angle, t hough
sounds appealing on a first blush but on a deeper consideration t he fact
that a decision is taken to initiate major penalty proceedings an d t he
CVC vide its O.M. dated February 07, 2017 did recommend action
against the petitioner as per rules and the fact t hat a ch arge sh eet was
issued to the petitioner under Rule 9 of the CCS Pen sion Rules 1972,
though later, cannot be overlooked and the same suggest that the
petitioner was not fit from vigilance angle.
56. The plea of the petitioner was that the complaint dated Febru ary
16, 2015 being pseudonymous and no confirmation h as been received
from the complainant before acting on t he sam e could n ot h ave been
acted upon is unmerited. This plea is contested by t he respondents by
stating that the complaint being of M/s Raj Gypsum Udyog, it was
neither anonymous nor pseudonymous as the said entity is a regist ered
contractor in FAGMIL. Further, M/s Raj Gypsum Udyog had filed fou r
petitions challenging the action of FAGMIL on the t ender, as su ch it s
identity is known and the genuineness of the complaint cannot be
doubted.
57. Insofar as the plea of the petitioner that the services of the Board
level employee cannot be terminated if he / she is due to extension
without specific order of ACC is concerned, in this regard I m ay st at e,
though the petitioner was relieved from his duties as the CMD FAGMIL
on December 01, 2016, the approval of t h e ACC was sou ght on ly on
December 15, 2016 after the impugned relieving order was issu ed an d
the petitioner had filed a petition before this Court which was pen ding.
The ACC vide communication dated July 13, 2017 gave its approval for
non renewal of tenure of the petitioner and had regu larised t he period
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 26
between March 08, 2016 and December 01, 2016 during which period
the petitioner continued to discharge the duties of CMD FAGMIL.
58. The submission of Mr. Kumar on this plea is that there is no
difference between approval and ex-post-facto approval an d t he same
shall not affect the legality of the decision.
59. The petitioner had relied upon the OM's dated March 31, 2011
and October 30, 2014, whereas the respondents apart from t he above
circulars have also referred to OM dated April 03, 2001. A readin g of
the above OMs, the following position is noted:
(i) In the eventuality, the recommendation of PESB for
continuance is not accepted, then the approval of the Competent
Authority / ACC is to be sought.
(ii) All proposals wherein the incumbents meet the
benchmark, but on some other issue such as vigilan ce et c., t he
Ministry / Department is not inclined to recommend ext ension,
the proposal shall be referred to the ACC for con sideration six
months before schedule of expiry of tenure of the incumbent.
(iii) The circular dated October 30, 2014 on ly records in t he
first paragraph, the position under the extant policy, inasmuch as
in case the initial term of five years of a Board level appoin t ee
comes to an end prior to his / her date of superannuation ,
extension of his / her tenure up to the date of superannuation is
considered with the approval of the ACC subject to his / her
being free from vigilance angle and meeting the prescribed
performance and parameters. In terms of t h e in structions, t he
services of any Board level appointee cannot be t erminated on
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 27
completion of his initial term, if h e / sh e is du e for ext en sion
without specific orders of the ACC.
60. I may state here that OM's of 2001 / 2011 / 2014 con t emplates
the non-renewal of the tenure of the Board level appointee shall be upon
consideration and with the approval / specific orders of ACC.
61. The plea of the petitioner was that prior approval of the ACC is
required, before relieving the petitioner from duties as CMD, FAGMIL.
62. I am of the view, the said requirement has been m et. Th is I say
so for the following reasons:
(1) the effect of the instructions / OM's is that the appointee
shall not be relieved till such time approval / specific orders of
the ACC are sought.
(2) the petitioner was relieved, only after taking approval /
orders of the ACC.
(3) the delayed consideration enured to the benefit of the
petitioner as he continued to work as CMD, t ill su ch t ime, t he
ACC approved, the decision of the Ministry / Department, not to
extend the tenure, and the said period of nine months was
regularised in favour of the petitioner.
63. The plea of the petitioner that the order dated December 01,
2016 is an order of compulsory retirement as the petitioner still had
service till 2019, is not appealing. This, I say so, on demitting the office
of CMD, FAGMIL, the petitioner should have reverted back to his
parent organisation PDIL provided he had maintained his lien there. The
lien of the petitioner on his appointment was maintained for five years.
There is nothing on record to show that his lien beyond five years was
also maintained in PDIL. Even if he has applied, the same has not been
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 28
maintained. The remedy for the petitioner was to seek an order again st
PDIL in that regard. No such prayer has been made in this pet ition n or
has PDIL been made a party. Hence, the non renewal of t h e t enure of
the petitioner cannot be construed as compulsory retirement. It is a
simple case where the tenure has not been extended beyond five years
and nine months, which is permissible under the terms of appointment
and also as per the decision of the ACC.
64. Insofar as the plea of the petitioner by placin g reliance on t he
Parliamentary Committee report dated February 06, 2015 to claim
compensation is concerned, the same is wit h out m erit in view of m y
above conclusion justifying the non-renewal of tenure. Even the
compensation granted in favour of Ms. Rita Kunur was because her
tenure was terminated despite extension, which is not the case here. The
petitioner cannot seek any parity qua Ms. Rita Kunur.
65. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Joshi and Ors. (supra)
to contend that the prior approval of ACC is required before he could be
relieved. I have already said prior approval of ACC was t aken before
the petitioner was relieved. In any case, the said judgment has no
applicability in the facts of this case, inasmuch as the relevant rule
which was interpreted by the Division Bench to hold that obtaining prior
concurrence from the Central Government is man datory an d post fact
concurrence would not validate the promotion is the following
"appointment of a member of the service in the case of selection grade
and above shall be subject to availability of vacancies in these grades
and for this purpose it shall be mandatory upon the said cadres or the
joint cadres authorities as the case may be to seek prior concurrence of
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 29
the Central Government on the number of available vacancies in each
grade". The Division Bench has held that the word "prior" occurring in
the rule suggest the prior approval of the Central Government an d n ot
post facto concurrence. In fact, the reliance on the judgment is
misplaced.
66. The petitioner has also relied upon the judgment in t he case of
Union of India (supra) in support of his contention that pseudonymous
complaint cannot be taken into consideration in t erms of t h e circu lar
issued by the CVC. Suffice to state that I have already held that the
complaint dated February 16, 2016 was not a pseudonymous complaint,
but a complaint made by M/s Raj Gypsum Udyog whose identity is
known as it had filed four petitions before the High Court and there was
no requirement to refer the complaint to the said Com pany for own ing
it.
67. The judgment in the case of H.M. Singh (supra) relied u pon by
the petitioner has no applicability in the facts of th is case in asmuch as
the terms of appointment as noted above, stipulate that the appointment
is for five years or for a lesser period or till superannuation. Such t erms
cannot give rise to legitimate expectation to the petitioner that his tenure
shall be extended. Even the circulars/orders issued by t h e respondents
which contemplate non-renewal of tenure but with the approval of t h e
ACC, suggest there cannot be any legitimate expectation for ext ension
of tenure. The reliance on the judgment in the case of Educ. Cons. (I)
Ltd. SC/ST Empl. Wel. Asso. (Supra) is misplaced, in as m uch as t h e
decision of the Disciplinary Authority to initiate major penalty
proceedings and a charge sheet having been issued, it is clear the
petitioner was not clear from vigilance angle.
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 30
68. The plea of the petitioner that the Minister h ad n ot passed an y
order and had just put his signature without applying h is in dependent
mind and without verification of the facts is also n ot appealing. Th is
submission of the petitioner is in view of the extract note dated
November 25, 2016 reproduced in para 7 above. The note was approved
by the Minister pursuant to which the petitioner was relieved. The
decision to relieve the petitioner from the post of CMD, FAGMIL is an
administrative act which does not require a detailed order by the
Minister unlike the quasi judicial decision. Further the plea has no basis
as a physical copy of the note has not been placed on record. The
petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Chairman-cum-MD, Coal India Ltd. (supra) is misplaced. As the
order with which the Supreme Court was concerned was an order
reviving the disciplinary proceedings which are quasi judicial
proceedings obligating the authority to pass a reasoned order unlike t he
decision in this case relieving the petitioner of his duties being a pu rely
administrative decision.
69. The petitioner who has also relied upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Kalabharati Advertising (supra) in support of his
submission that with the withdrawal of the writ pet itions on February
16, 2016, the complaints of M/s Raj Gypsum Udyog have lost their
relevance is concerned, suffice to state the writ petitions were
withdrawn with liberty to avail remedy if any under general law. I fin d
M/s Raj Gypsum Udyog had already availed the remedy of filing the
complaint on February 15, 2016, one day before the withdrawal of t h e
Writ Petitions, on which a decision was taken by the Minister In-charge,
the Disciplinary Authority to initiate penalty proceedings. So, despite
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 31
withdrawal of the writ petition, there is a decision against the pet itioner
which shows there is a justifiable ground to relieve the pet itioner. The
judgment for the proposition advanced has no applicability.
70. The judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra (supra) an d
Dr. Sahadeva (supra) relied upon by the petitioner in support of his
submission that executive orders / rules / circu lars n eed t o be st rictly
complied with have no applicability in the facts of this case an d also in
view of my conclusion above.
71. The reliance placed by the petitioner in the case of Surender Pal
Kaul (supra) and State Bank of India (supra) in support of his
contention that termination without an in quiry / sh ow cau se n otice is
stigmatic in nature is concerned, the said judgments have no
applicability in the facts of this case wherein the terms of appoi n tment
as noted above are very clear, inasmuch as that the appointment of t h e
petitioner as CMD, FAGMIL was for a period of five years or t ill t h e
age of superannuation or even for a lesser period and also in view of m y
conclusion above justifying non-renewal of tenure of t h e pet itioner on
the ground that he is not clear from vigilance angle. Even t he order of
relieving the petitioner is an order simpliciter without detailing the
reasons for not renewing the tenure/appointment.
72. Insofar as the judgment in the case of Anant Construction
(supra) and A.K. Verma (supra) are concerned, they have no
applicability in the facts of this case.
73. In view of my discussion above, I find no merit in this pet ition,
the same is dismissed. No costs.
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 32
C.M. APPL. 9667/2017
In view of my conclusion in the writ petition, the present
application is dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
JUNE 23, 2021/jg
W.P.(C) 2209/2017 Page 33
