Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Ghei vs Union Of India And Others on 25 March, 2022
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 25.03.2022
+ W.P.(C) 4968/2022
SANJEEV GHEI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr A.K. Bhardwaj with
Mr. Shivanshu Bhardwaj and Mr.
Karan Gautam, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms Nidhi Raman, CGSC with
Mr Tarveen Singh Nanda, Advocate
for respondent nos.1 and 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
CM APPL. 14775/2022
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 4968/2022
CM APPL 14774/2022[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner
seeking interim relief]
CM APPL. 14776/2022[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner for
filing additional documents]
2. Issue notice.
3. Ms Nidhi Raman accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATUL
Signing Date:26.03.2022
17:12:29
3.1. In view of the directions that we intend to pass, notice need not issue
to respondent no.3.
4. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for
hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
5. This writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order dated
23.02.2022, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short
„Tribunal‟] in OA No.2/2022 and MA Nos.399/2022 and 400/2022,
preferred in the said O.A.
6. Mr A.K. Bhardwaj, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that
the petitioner had approached the Tribunal by way of MA No.399/2022
seeking a stay on the charge memo dated 31.12.2014. It is the contention of
Mr Bhardwaj that this charge memo stands withdrawn; an aspect which the
Tribunal has also noted in its order dated 23.02.2022.
6.1. In support of this plea i.e., that the aforementioned charge memo has
been withdrawn, Mr Bhardwaj has drawn our attention to pages 299 and 449
of the case file.
7. Ms Nidhi Raman, who appears on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and
2, says that although the record placed before the court, at this juncture,
shows that the charge memo is withdrawn, a close perusal of the document
relied upon by Mr Bhardwaj, will show that the respondents intend to issue a
fresh charge memo.
7.1. Furthermore, Ms Raman says that, at this point in time, she does not
have any instructions as to whether or not a fresh charge memo has, in fact,
been issued to the petitioner.
8. A perusal of the prayers made in the O.A. shows that the petitioner is
also aggrieved by the fact that while he has been compulsorily retired from
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATUL
Signing Date:26.03.2022
17:12:29
service w.e.f. 27.09.2019, an attempt was being made to continue with the
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. According to the petitioner,
the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings has become in law, even
more untenable, with the withdrawal of the charge memo dated 31.12.2014.
8.1. Since the record i.e., the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has
listed the O.A. before it on 28.03.2022, the Tribunal will take the decision
one way or the other, on this aspect of the matter.
8.2. The respondents will inform the Tribunal on the next date of hearing,
as to whether or not a fresh charge memo stands issued against the
petitioner. In case a fresh charge memo stands issued, the Tribunal will take
that fact into account and pass orders as deemed fit, having regard to such
circumstance.
9. At this stage, one of the arguments that Mr Bhardwaj raises is that
there is an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the respondents
will continue proceedings vis-à-vis the charge-memo dated 31.12.2014,
although the same has been withdrawn.
9.1. In this context, our attention has been drawn by Mr Bhardwaj to the
prayer made in M.A. No.399/2022, preferred in the aforesaid O.A. For the
sake of convenience, the substantive prayer made in the application is
extracted below:
"In the premises of the above, it is respectfully prayed that the further
proceedings qua the charge memorandum No. F.No. C-
14011/91/2014-V&L dated 31.12.2014 may kindly be stayed, being
impermissible under the law."
9.2. M.A. No. 399/2022 was dismissed, without calling upon the
respondents to respond to the same via the impugned order, on the ground
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATUL
Signing Date:26.03.2022
17:12:29
that it has been rendered infructuous.
9.3. However, the documents appended on pages 473 and 475 of the case
file, prima facie, seem to suggest that although, the charge memo dated
31.12.2014 has been withdrawn, the proceedings qua the same are being
continued by the respondents.
10. In these circumstances, we are of the view, that given the prayer made
in the MA No.399/2022, as extracted above, the Tribunal clearly has not
appreciated the relief that the petitioner was seeking.
11. Therefore, the impugned order passed qua MA No.399/2022 is set
aside.
11.1. The Tribunal is directed to hear, afresh, arguments in MA No.
399/2022 along with OA No. 2/2022.
12. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
13. Consequently, pending applications shall stand closed.
(RAJIV SHAKDHER)
JUDGE
(JASMEET SINGH)
JUDGE
MARCH 25, 2022/tr
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATUL
Signing Date:26.03.2022
17:12:29
