Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors vs Krishan Kumar on 11 August, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11.08.2025
+ W.P.(C) 7104/2025
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Chetan Sharma, ASG with
Mr.Vikrant N. Goyal, Mr.Arun
Kumar Yadav and Mr.Naman,
Advs.
versus
KRISHAN KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Pawan Narang, Sr. Adv.
with Mr.S. K. Gupta, Mr.Sanket
Gupta, Mr.Moksh Kataria,
Ms.Aishwarya and Ms.Muskan,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 32090/2025 & CM APPL. 32092/2025
1. These applications have already been allowed vide Order dated
23.05.2025.
W.P.(C) 7104/2025 & CM APPL. 32091/2025, CM APPL.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the
Order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the,
'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 3279/2018, titled Krishan Kumar v. Union of
India & Ors., disposing of the said O.A. filed by the respondent
herein in the following terms:
"24. In view of the aforesaid, the captioned
OAs are allowed with the following order(s):
(i) the impugned notice(s) dated
23.08.2018 are set aside
(ii) the applicants shall be entitled for
consequential benefits in accordance with law,
relevant rules and instructions on the subject
(iii) the aforesaid exercise shall be complied
with by the respondents as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order
(iv) the respondents shall be at liberty to
proceed against the applicants, if so advised,
of course in accordance with law"
3. To give a brief background of the facts in which the present
petition arises, the petitioner no.3 issued an Advertisement Notice in
the Employment News to fill up vacancies for various posts at the
Government of India Press, Faridabad for the year 2007-2008.
4. The respondent participated in the same and was issued an
Offer of Appointment vide Memorandum dated 14.01.2008, which
provided for a probation period for two years.
5. Based on complaints of large scale of irregularities at various
Government of India Press, including at Faridabad, the respondent
was not confirmed to the post due to an on-going inquiry into the
allegations of such irregularities.
6. On 23.08.2018, the respondent was served with a one month
notice of termination expiring on 22.09.2018. Aggrieved of the same,
the respondent approached the learned Tribunal by way of an O.A.,
being O.A. No. 3279 /2018, titled Krishan Kumar v. Union of India
& Ors., which came to be dismissed by the learned Tribunal by its
Order dated 21.02.2019. The respondent challenged the same before
this Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 2184/2019, and by the Judgment
dated 14.10.2019, the matter was remanded back to the learned
Tribunal for a fresh consideration. The learned Tribunal, by its
Impugned Order dated 26.07.2024, disposed of the O.A. in the above
terms.
7. The petitioners filed a Review Petition before the learned
Tribunal, however, the same has also been dismissed by the learned
Tribunal by its Order dated 21.02.2025, which also is in challenge
before us in the present petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned
Tribunal has failed to appreciate that there were allegations of
irregularities committed by various officials of the Government of
India Press, Faridabad, in the matter of recruitment. He submits that
this even led to a Report dated 22.12.2021 from the Central Bureau of
Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the, 'CBI'), recommending
prosecution of these officers under Section 120B, 420 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It has also been recommended
that the appointment of the candidates whose selection has been found
to be irregular, be cancelled. He submits that, therefore, no fault
should have been found with the steps taken by the petitioners to
terminate the services of the respondent.
9. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the
respondent, who appears on advance notice of this petition, submits
that in the CBI Report referred to by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, allegations of irregularity in appointment of named
candidates from different posts has been mentioned, but as far as the
post of Offset Machine Attendant is concerned, the respondent has not
been named as someone whose appointment was marred with any
irregularity.
10. He submits that the Impugned Order of terminating the services
of the respondent was not based on the CBI Report. In fact, at the
initial stage of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, no reliance
was placed by the petitioners on the said Report and it is only with the
Review Petition that the same was relied upon.
11. He further submits that, in any case, there was no Show-Cause
Notice issued to the respondent before passing the stigmatic order of
terminating the services of the respondent.
12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
13. Admittedly, the services of the respondent was sought to be
terminated on the ground of alleged irregularities in the matter of
appointment. However, before taking such drastic and stigmatic step,
no Show-Cause Notice was issued to the respondent.
14. The CBI Report which has been relied upon by the petitioners,
as far as the post of Offset Machine Attendant to which the respondent
had been appointed, does not mention his name as a person whose
appointment had been irregularly made.
15. The learned Tribunal has also reserved a right with the
petitioners to proceed against the respondent in accordance with law,
if so advised.
16. For the above-stated reasons, we find no infirmity in the Order
passed by the learned Tribunal. The petition along with the pending
applications is, accordingly, dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
AUGUST 11, 2025/sg/ik
