Delhi High Court
Sh. Dinesh Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 11 February, 2022
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 11.02.2022
+ W.P.(C) 13259/2019
SH. DINESH SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr R.V. Sinha, Mr A.S. Singh, Mr
Amit Sinha and Mr Sharanya Sinha,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr Ripudaman Bharadwaj, CGSC
with Mr Hanu Bhaskar, Adv. for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):-
CM APPL. 3175/2022
1. On the previous date i.e., 19.01.2022, we had passed the following
order in the above-captioned application :
"1. Mr A. S. Singh, who appears on behalf of the
petitioner/applicant, says that since the inquiry officer has
submitted the inquiry report, albeit on 30.03.2021, all that the
petitioner seeks, in the form of direction, is that the disciplinary
authority should take a decision, one way or another, within the
stipulated timeframe.
2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated
22.08.2019, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in
short the "Tribunal"] in O.A. No.2772/2017, wherein the
operative directions issued were that the inquiry should be
completed within a period of six months.
3. Given this position, we are prima facie of the view that a
direction can be issued to the disciplinary authority to take a
decision in the matter within a stipulated timeframe, with liberty
to the petitioner to assail the decision of the disciplinary
authority, if it is adverse to his interest based on the grounds
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P (C) No.13259/2019 Pg. 1 of 3
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:13.02.2022
19:55:12
raised in the O.A., as also the grounds taken in the writ petition.
4. Mr Hanu Bhaskar, who appears on behalf of the respondents,
says that he will take instructions in the matter.
4.1. Mr Singh says that he will do likewise.
5. List the matter on 11.02.2022.
6. In the meanwhile, Mr Singh will furnish a copy of the case
papers, including the above-captioned application to Mr Bhaskar
during the course of the day, albeit, via e-mail."
2. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, Mr Hanu Bhaskar, who appears
on behalf of the respondents, has reverted with instructions.
2.1. Mr Bhaskar says that the final decision will be taken by the
disciplinary authority qua the petitioner, within the next six months
commencing from today.
2.2. The statement of Mr Bhaskar is taken on record.
3. The above-captioned application is, thus, disposed of, in view of the
statement made by Mr Bhaskar above. However, it would be open to the
petitioner to raise any objections vis-a-vis the final decision taken by the
disciplinary authority, including the objection with regard to delay, albeit, as
per law.
W.P.(C) 13259/2019 & CM APPL.53914/2019[Application filed on behalf
of the petitioner for interim relief]
4. Both Mr R.V. Sinha, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr
Bhaskar say that the writ petition and the pending application can be closed,
having regard to the order passed in CM No.3175/2022.
4.1. It is ordered accordingly.
5. Resultantly, the date fixed in the matter i.e., 09.05.2022 shall stand
cancelled.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P (C) No.13259/2019 Pg. 2 of 3
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:13.02.2022
19:55:12
6. The case file shall stand consigned to record.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TALWANT SINGH, J
FEBRUARY 11, 2022/rb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P (C) No.13259/2019 Pg. 3 of 3
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:13.02.2022
19:55:12
