Go-002092W Ram Milan vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3138 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010196262021




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No. : WP(C)/6262/2021

         GO-002092W RAM MILAN
         S/O. LT. GHINAHOO YADAV, R/O. FLAT NO.A3/529, HIMSAGAR
         APARTMENTS, BUILDERS AREA, POCKET IV, GREATER NOIDA, DIST.
         GAUTAM BUDDH NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN-201310, PRESENTLY
         SERVING AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (CIVIL) AND POSTED AT HQ
         ADDL. DGBR (EAST), GUWAHATI, C/O. 99 APO, PIN-930047.



         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
         REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
         DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

         2:THE SECRETARY

          CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION
          A-BLOCK
          GPO COMPLEX
          SATARKATA BHAWAN
          INA
          NEW DELHI-110023.

         3:THE UNDERE SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA (VIGILANCE - MES AND BRO)
          ROOM NO. 136
          KASHMIR HOUSE
          RAJAJI MARG
          NEW DELHI-110011.

         4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

          BORDER ROADS ORGANIZATION
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/3

             SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN
             RING ROAD
             DELHI CANTT.
             NEW DELHI-110010

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K N CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                             ORDER

26.11.2021

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner is presently serving as a Superintending Engineer (Civil) in the Border Roads Organisation. He submits that a process is underway for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, which is going to be held soon. He submits that a Criminal Case bearing No. RC- 04(A)/2013-GWH had been registered against him by the CBI under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)&(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in respect of alleged recovery of cash amounting to Rs.15,03,000/- from his possession. After the case was investigated, the CBI submitted it's Final Report dated 17.12.2013 before the learned Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati and forwarded the same to the Director General Border Roads for taking such departmental action as may be deemed fit against the petitioner vide letter dated 18.12.2013. He submits that the learned Court of Special Judge, CBI did not accept the aforesaid Final Report and directed the CBI authorities to file a charge-sheet. Thereafter, the CBI submitted charge-sheet on 09.05.2018 and the learned Special Judge, Additional CBI Court No.III, Chandmari, Guwahati took cognizance of the offences as brought out in the charge-sheet vide order dated 29.08.2018. Charges were framed vide order dated 15.02.2020 against the petitioner and as on date, 4 (four) prosecution witnesses have been examined.

The petitioner's counsel submits that though the recovery of money had been made in the year 2013, the Memorandum of Charge under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has been made only recently i.e., on 13.07.2021, just prior to the process for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer having been initiated.

Page No.# 3/3

The petitioner's counsel submits that the inordinate delay in issuing the Memorandum of Charge against the petitioner and in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the delay should entail the setting aside of the Memorandum of Charge. He submits that this would be in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court in M.V. Mahadevan vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 1990 (suppl) SCC 738 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636.

The petitioner's counsel submits that as per the CVC guidelines dated 23.05.2000, charge-sheet should be issued within 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the investigation report.

The petitioner's counsel submits that due to the above reasons the chances of the petitioner being selected for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer has dimmed and accordingly, he submits that in the interest of fair play, the proceedings of the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner should be stayed, till final disposal of the case.

Mr. P.S. Lahakar, learned CGC on the other hand submits that the Memorandum Charge had been issued to the petitioner on 13.07.2021 and the petitioner has submitted his written statement of defence on 23.08.2021. He submits that the next date fixed in the departmental proceeding is 01.12.2021.

Issue Notice returnable in 3 (three) weeks.

Mr. P.S. Lahakar, learned CGC accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents.

On considering the fact that the CVC has advised initiation of major penalty proceedings against the petitioner vide office memorandum dated 26.03.2021 (Page-57) and that the petitioner has already submitted his written statement of defence in the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him, this Court is not inclined to stay the departmental proceeding.

List the matter after three weeks.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant