Delhi High Court
Ashutosh Gautam vs Icar And Ors on 28 February, 2022
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 28.02.2022
+ W.P.(C) 3493/2022 & CM No.10308/2022
ASHUTOSH GAUTAM ..... Petitioner
Through Mr M. K. Bhardwaj, Advocate
versus
ICAR AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr S. K. Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
[Physical Court Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL) :
1. Issue notice.
1.1. Mr S. K. Gupta accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is
taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself, based on the
record presently available with the Court.
3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.01.2022,
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short, the "Tribunal"] in
O.A. No.179/2022.
3.1. Mr M. K. Bhardwaj, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that
the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the Tribunal has dismissed the
aforesaid O.A. via the impugned order, simply, on the ground of limitation.
3.2 According to Mr Bhardwaj, apart from anything else, there was a
challenge in the O.A. to the order dated 12.07.2021 passed by respondent
no.4 i.e., Chief Vigilance Officer, Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:03.03.2022
11:23:39
[in short, "ICAR"], whereby the appointing authority for the post of
Assistant Legal Advisor [in short "ALA"] i.e., Secretary, ICAR was
appointed as the disciplinary authority qua the petitioner.
3.3 Mr Bhardwaj says that the petitioner was transferred from ICAR
Headquarters to the Indian Agricultural Research Institute [in short,
"IARI"], pursuant to order dated 03.05.2017. Mr Bhardwaj states that the
petitioner continues to work with IARI.
3.4. Therefore, it is Mr Bhardwaj's contention that the disciplinary
authority qua the petitioner could only be the Director, IARI. In support of
this plea, the petitioner, inter alia, has placed reliance on the communication
dated 07.06.2019, addressed by the then Under Secretary (Vigilance), ICAR
to the Director, IARI, as also the Office Memorandum dated 16.04.1969,
issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs; to which a
reference has been made in the said communication.
3.5. This aspect of the matter has, concededly, not been decided by the
Tribunal.
4. The operative directions issued in the impugned order dated
27.01.2022 are extracted hereafter:
"8. We find that applicant is challenging the memorandum
dated 15.12.2016 and 05.01.2017 without giving any
explanation as to the delay in approaching the Tribunal. No MA
seeking condonation of delay has been filed either. It is well
settled that an applicant has to explain each day's delay in
approaching the Tribunal.
xxx xxx xxx
10. From the perusal of the aforesaid section, it is abundantly
clear that limitation prescribed for filing O.A. before this
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:03.03.2022
11:23:39
Tribunal is one year from the date of accrual of the cause of
action. The same can be extended by another six months from
the date of filing of appeal, if the same is not decided. It has
further been stated that if the application is not filed within time
as stipulated in Section 21 of the A.T. Act, then the applicant
has to move a Misc. Application for seeking condonation of
delay by explaining the delay of each day in not filing the
Original Application within the limitation. Section 21 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 came up for consideration
before the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of cases including
the following cases:-
(a) S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P. (AIR 1990 SC 10);
(b) Administrator of Union Territory of Daman and Diu
and others Vs. R.D. Valand - 1995 Supp(4) SC.C. 593;
(c) State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. S.M.Kotrayya & Ors.
1996 (6) S.L.R. S.C. Page 664);
(d) P.K.Ramachandran versus State of Kerala & Another
(J.T. 1997(8) S.C. 189);
(e) Karnataka Power Corporation Limited through its
CMD & Another vs. K.Thangappan & Another (2006(4)
S.C.C. 322);
(f) U.P.Jal Nigam vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors. (2007(1)
S.C.T. 225;
(g) C. Jacob vs. Director Geology & Mining (2008 (10)
S.C.C. 115) ;
(h) Union of India & Ors. v. M.K. Sarkar reported in
(2010)2 Supreme Court Cases 59; and
(i) Union of India & Ors. Versus A.Duairaj (J.T. 2011 (3)
S.C. Page 254)."
xxx xxx xxx
12. We also find that the applicant has made personal
allegations against respondents No.3 to 5 but he has not been
able to substantiate the same. It appears that the applicant in
order to cover his own shortcomings has levelled false and
baseless allegations against the aforesaid officials without any
supporting document by merely alleging bias which cannot be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:03.03.2022
11:23:39
taken cognizance by the Tribunal. No case is made out for
interference by the Tribunal.
13. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case,
we do not find any merit in this OA. Accordingly, the same is
dismissed being devoid of merit besides being barred by
limitation. There shall be no order as to costs."
4.1. A perusal of the aforesaid extract would disclose that the Tribunal has
failed to deal with one of the impugned orders in the O.A. i.e., order dated
12.07.2021. The Tribunal's failure to render a decision on tenability of the
claim of the petitioner, which is, that only the Director, IRAI could have
been made the disciplinary authority qua the petitioner, has impregnated the
impugned order with illegality.
4.2. The petitioner had further contended in the O.A. that he is being
victimised by respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, because he had made complaints
regarding respondent no 3 i.e., one, Mr Santosh Kumar Singh. It is the
petitioner's contention that the said respondents have acted in collusion to
deprive the petitioner of the increase in pay under the OM dated 18.06.2021
issued by ICAR. The order dated 12.07.2021 has been issued by respondent
no. 4, one, Mrs Shaleen Agrawal, holding the position of the Director
(DARE) and Chief Vigilance Officer, ICAR. This is an aspect which can be
gone into, when the Tribunal re-examines the matter afresh, and, therefore,
need not detain us at this juncture.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.01.2022 is set aside and
the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing in the matter.
6. Needless to add, nothing stated hereinabove will impact the merits of
the matter, and that the parties will be free to advance their respective
contentions before the Tribunal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:03.03.2022
11:23:39
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JASMEET SINGH, J
FEBRUARY 28, 2022/pmc
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:03.03.2022
11:23:39
