Virender Kumar Dhall v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6.5.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.96212003 ,

dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the presbnt petition \ is filed. w.P.(c) 447212003 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

The contention that is raised in this writ petition is that initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner after inordinate and unexplained delay of ten years is liable to be quashed. The petitioner herein was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk with Union Public Service Commission. He was sent on deputation w.e.f I2.8.9I to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. During the aforesaid period of deputation, the petitioner also officiated as an Accountant w.e.f.12.8.91. The petitioner was on deputation and on explry of his deputation he was repatriated back to his parent organization, namely, Union Public Service Commission on 11.8.94. After he reported back for duty to his parent organisation, namely, the Union Public Service Commission, he was placed under suspension under order dated 18.8.94. The aforesaid order of suspension was, however, revoked by an order dated 12.8.99.

A complaint was also lodged by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs with the Police alleging misappropriation of Government money and on the basis of the said complaint an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 26.6.t993. The petitioner was arested in connection with the aforesaid criminal case but he was later on granted bail. A chargesheet was filed against him in the said criminal case and in the said nial only four witnesses have been examined out of a long list of witnesses. A memorandum of charge, proposing to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner was w.P.(c) 4472t2003 t^ ? /^ issued by the Union Public Service Commission on29.3.2003. The said memorandum contains two articles of charges alleging, inter alia, that while working on deputation during the period of 12.8.91 to Il.8.g4,he had tailed to maintain absolute integration and devotion to duty as he deliberately violated laid down procedure for accounting Government money, made fictitious entries in the cash book, forged two challans relating to payments amounting to Rs.50,000/- and ns.OO,OOOI-.

The petitioner upon service of the aforesaid memorandum of charges received by him on 3I.3.2003, immediately challenged the legality of the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an original application which was registered as O.A.No.96212003 in which an ad interim stay order was also passed by the Tribunal against continuation of the departmental proceedings. The said interim order continued till 6.5.2003 when the original application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply to the memorandum of charges by his letter dated 10.6.2003. The said reply was found to be unsatisfactory and accordingly the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition in this court an interim order was also passed by this court w.P.(c) 4472t2003 t^ v d that the departmental proceeding may continue but no final order shall be passed in the said proceedings.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He has mainly raised two contentions before us. The frst contention raised was unexplained delay in issuance of the chargesheet which vitiates the departmental proceeding. The next contention which was raised by the leanred cousnel for the petitioner was that simultaneous continuation of the departmental proceeding would cause prejudice to the petitioner as he would be required to disclose his defence which would prejudicially effect his interest in the criminal case.

Counsel appearing for the respondent, while refuting the aforesaid submissions, submitted before us that reasonable explanation has been provided by the respondents for the delay, if any, in conducting the departmental enquiry. It was also submitted that the petitioner has already disclosed his defence in the departmental proceeding and, therefore, the question of his defence being prejudicially effected has become redundant and is without any merit.

In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties, we proceed to dispose of this writ petition. a [JJ w.P.(c) 4o212003 4 DELAY IN IMTIATTON OF' TIIE DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS:- The incident, which is subject matter of the departmental proceedings, admittedly, relates to a period between 1991 to 1994 when the petitioner was working with the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. A criminal case was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent No.3 which is dated 26.6.93. Pursuant to registration of the FIR the petitioner was arrested but later on was released on bail. He was placed under suspension by order dated

18.8.94 but the said order was revoked on 12.8.99. The impugned memorandum of charge was issued much later i.e on29.3.2003. As there was a delay of ten years in initiation of the said departmental proceedings, the tegality of the same was challenged on the ground of inordinate delay relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in P.V.Mahadevan vs MD. T.N.Housing Board reported in 2005 (6) SCC 636, State of Madhya Pradesh vs Bani Sineh and Another