Delhi High Court
Bhajani Ram Meena Ips vs Union Of India & Ors. on 19 May, 2021
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.05.2021
+ W.P.(C) 5387/2021 & CM APPL. 16666/2021
BHAJANI RAM MEENA, IPS ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr.K.S. Chauhan & Mr.Ajit
Kumar Ekka, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Monika Arora, CGSC for
UOI/R-1 with Mr.Shriram
Tiwary, Adv.
Mr.Ravinder Agarwal &
Mr.Girish Pande, Advs. for R-2.
Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel for GNCTD
(services)/R-3 with Mr.Nitesh
Kumar Singh, Mrs.Tania
Ahlawat, Ms.Palak Rohmetra,
Advs.
Ms.Beenashaw N. Soni,
Standing Counsel for SDMC/R-
4 with Ms.Mansi Bhatia, Adv.
Mr.Sanjeev Sagar, Standing
Counsel for SDMC with
Ms.Nazia Praveen, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
Signature Not Verified
SHALOO BATRA
The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated
07.01.2021 passed by the learned Central Adm inistrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CAT') in O.A.
No. 2113 of 2016, titled Shri Bhajhani Ram Meena, IPS v. Union of
India & Ors., dismissing the said O.A. filed by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner had filed the said O.A. before t h e learn ed CAT
challenging the order dated 07.06.2016 appointing the respondent n o.
5 as the Chief Vigilance Officer, South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
as being contrary to paragraph 2.6.1 of Chapter II of the CVC
Vigilance Manual.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that t he learned
CAT has failed to appreciate that in terms of paragraph 2.4.3 of t h e
Vigilance Manual (Volume I) a panel of names of three officers was to
be forwarded by the Ministry to the Central Vigilance Commission
('Commission') from whom the officer approved by the Commission
for the post of CVO was to be appointed. He submits that in the
present case, the name of only respondent no. 5 was forwarded by t h e
concerned Ministry to the Commission for its approval, thereby
violating the procedure prescribed in the Vigilance Manual.
4. We do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
SHALOO BATRA
5. The respondent no. 1 in its reply filed to the said OA before t h e
learned CAT had inter alia explained the procedure followed by it in
making appointment of respondent no. 5, as under:
"4. That in accordance with the laid down
criteria, South Delhi Municipal Corporation
(SDMC) issued a Vacancy Circular dated
9.7.2015 for filling up the post of Chief
Vigilance Officer in SDMC on deputation
basis. In response SDMC received 15
applications for the post of Chief Vigilance
Officer (CVO). After scrutiny of service
records of the candidates, SDMC found 02
candidates viz. (1) Sh.Mangesh Kashyap,
DANIPS, (2) Sh. Bhajani Ram Meena, IPS
(UP:1997) (Applicant) suitable for the post of
CVO and forwarded their names to the Govt.
of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) for onward
submission to the Respondent Ministry (MHA)
for selecting one of the most suitable
candidate. However, GNCTD has forwarded
name Sh. H.P.S. Sran, DANICS and Sh.
Bhajani Ram Meena, IPS (UP:1997). Finally,
the respondent Ministry prepared eligible list
of three officers viz. (1) Sh. Mangesh
Kashyap, DANIPS, (2) H.P.S. Sran, DA NICS
and (2) Sh. Bhajani Ram Meena, IPS
(UP:1997).
5. That respondent Ministry after scrutinizing the
relevant records/service records/ACRs of the
above 03 officers, found that last 5 years of
ACRs grading are "outstanding" in respect of
Sh. Mangesh Kashyap, DANIPS (Respondent
No. 5) and found him suitable for the post of
CVO. Whereas Sh. Bhajani Ram Meena's
(Applicant) four years grading are
"outstanding" and one year is "very good".
Signature Not Verified
SHALOO BATRA
"Non-Recording Certificates" (NRC) for the
period from 7.12.2013 to 31.3.2015 were
recorded in respect of Sh. H.P.S. Sran,
DANICS. It is also submitted that the
applicant was not found suitable for the post
of CVO in SDMC. The applicant has lobbied
for the post by bringing extraneous pressure
/influence for his selection. He also wrote a
letter dated 11.5.2016 to the Union Home
Secretary (Annexure-R-4). His
efforts/lobbying for the post of CVO created
doubt about his intentions. Chief Vigilance
Officer (CVO) is a very sensitive job for which
the credentials/integrity has to be beyond
doubt.
6. That accordingly, the Respondent Ministry
found that Sh. Mangesh Kashyap, DANIPS is
the most suitable for the post of Chief
Vigilance Officer (CVO) in SDMC and
recommended and forwarded his name to the
Central Vigilance Commission for their
concurrence vide letter No. 14016/20/2015-
UTS-I, dated 6.4.2016. Para 2.4.2 (vi) of CVC
Vigilance Manual provides that the DoP&T or
the Administrative Ministry/Department
concerned would obtain specific approval in
favour of an officer if the proposal is to
appoint that officer as a CVO in any of 100
select organizations. SDMC is in the list of
100 select organizations (Annexure-R-3)."
6. Para 2.4.2 (vi) of the Vigilance Manual Volume I reads as
under:
Signature Not Verified
SHALOO BATRA
"2.4.2 The following guidelines have been
prescribed for filling up full-time posts of CVOs in
the PSUs:
xxxxx
(vi) The DOPT, or the administrative
Ministry/Department concerned, would
obtain specific approval in favor of an
officer in the proposal is to appoint that
officer as a CVO in any of 100 select
organisations."
7. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi is listed at Serial No. 92 of
the 'List of Select Organisations for which Specific Approval of t h e
Commission for an Officer to be Appointed as CVO is Required'.
8. Paragraph 2.4.3 is applicable to the PSUs which do not have full
time post of CVOs. This is a general residual provision. Paragraph
2.4.2 (vi), however, applies in specific to the 100 select organisations,
including MCD. The said procedure would therefore, prevail over t h e
general residual procedure prescribed in paragraph 2.4.3.
9. Admittedly, respondent no. 5 has been appointed aft er seeking
such specific approval from the Commission and is in accordance with
Paragraph 2.4.2(vi) of the Vigilance Manual and cannot be fault ed on
that account.
10. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present pet ition.
The same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Signature Not Verified
SHALOO BATRA
11. The order be uploaded on the website fort hwith. Copy of t h e
order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
MANMOHAN, J.
MAY 19, 2021/ rv/ns/P
Signature Not Verified
SHALOO BATRA
