Delhi High Court
V. Vikraman vs Union Of India Through Secretary ... on 8 February, 2024
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: February 8, 2024
+ W.P.(C) 1832/2024, CM APPL. 7650/2024
(50) V. VIKRAMAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Umair A. Andrabi, Mr. Anubhav,
Mr. Naseer Jafri and Mr. Uzair,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF
HOME AFFAIRS & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, SPC with
Mr. Amit Acharya, GP alongwith Ms.
Anjali Kumari, Mr. Samyak Jain and
Mr. Ayush Raj, Advocates
SI Shrabanta Sarkar, SSB
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following
prayers:-
1. Issue an appropriate writ to quash the chargesheet dated 14.09.2001
being non est in law and direct the respondents to provide all the
consequential benefits, including and not limited to service, seniority,
and financial benefits.
2. Pass any further/additional orders that this Hon'ble Court deems fit."
2. In effect, the challenge in the petition is to a charge-sheet dated
September 14, 2001 which was issued to the petitioner. There is no dispute
that the respondents imposed the penalty of reducing the petitioner to the
lower stage from Rs.10,750/- to Rs.8,000/- in the time scale, for a period of
two years. It is a conceded position that the petitioner had challenged the
said penalty before this Court in the year 2007 in a writ petition being W. P.
(C) 2328/2007, which was decided in the year 2017 whereby this Court had
dismissed the petition.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view
of the settled position of law of the Supreme Court in Union of India and
Others v. B.V. Gopinath, 2014 (1) SCC 351, the petitioner has filed a
review petition under Rule 29A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, in the year
2020 challenging the charge sheet on the ground that, in absence of the
approval of the charges by the Competent Authority, the further proceedings
in the disciplinary case cannot be sustained.
4. According to him, the respondents vide communication dated April
23, 2021, disposed of the review petition without dealing with the plea
raised by the petitioner. He also states that the issue raised in the review
petition goes to the root on the maintainability of the charge-sheet itself.
5. We are not impressed by the submission made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, in view of the fact that the petitioner had challenged the
punishment order in the earlier writ petition being W. P. (C) 2328/2007,
which has resulted in the dismissal of the writ petition vide judgement dated
April 18, 2017, which shall make the Review Petition filed by the petitioner
under Rule 29A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as not maintainable. The
petitioner cannot in piecemeal approach the authorities / Court challenging
the very same proceedings which have attained finality. The judgment of the
Supreme Court rendered in the year 2014, shall not give a cause of action to
the petitioner to file a review petition before the Authority followed by this
petition. Nothing precluded the petitioner to amend the writ petition filed in
the year 2007. Having not done that, and the said petition has been
dismissed, this petition shall also follow the same fate as being not
maintainable both on the ground of res judicata / constructive res judicata.
6. Unfortunately, for the reasons best known, the order(s) passed in the
previous writ petition have not been annexed with this petition.
7. Be that as it may the petition alongwith pending application, is
dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
FEBRUARY 8, 2024/akr
