Bhaj an Singh v. St at e of Ut t arakhand ot hers) is report ed in

“ 9 . I t was point ed out t hat t he first charge- sheet was fram ed on 5- 12- 2011 which cont ained t hree serious charges wit h respect t o t he irregularit ies com m it t ed by Respondent 4 as t he Mem ber- Secret ary of t he Zonal Tender Com m it t ee when he was t he t he Execut ive Engineer Const ruct ion Division, Paur i, dur ing 1- 6- 1995 t o 19- 7- 2007. Charge 1 t hereof alleged of not com plying w it h t he depart m ent al procedure for deciding t he work of t ender s concerning laying and j oint ing of pipelines and appur t enant works from Nanghat source t o Molt haghat under Nanghat Pot able Wat er Supply Schem e, result ing int o avoidable delay in reaching t he benefit s of t he t o t he Nigam and benefit ing t he schem e t o t he general public. Charge 2 was regarding t he procedure for invit ing, opening and accept ance of t he t enders and non- com pliance t hereof requir ing re- t endering, concerning t he sam e Nanghat Pot able Wat er Supply Schem e, result ing int o cost overrun and t im e overrun. Charge 3 was regarding t he m anner in which t he t echnical bids were decided concerning t he said schem e, ult im at ely result ing int o loss of Rs 49.17 t he cont ract ors. These obj ect ions were raised in t he audit report of 2008- 2009 and accept ed by t he Account ant General. This charge- sheet called upon Respondent 4 t o inform t he under signing inquiry officer in wr it ing whet her he want ed t o exam ine or cross- exam ine any w it ness. Evidence in support of t he charges was m ent ioned along wit h t he charges. The charge- sheet also required Respondent 4 t o subm it wr it t en st at em ent . The charge- sheet was signed by t he inquiry officer for and on behalf of t he Nigam , and was approved t he said Nigam , whose approval and signat ures are also t o be seen by t he side of t he signat ures of t he inquir y officer. t he Chairm an of recom m ended I t is m at er ial t o not e t hat no reply was 1 0 . filed t o t his charge- sheet by Respondent 4. The Select ion Com m it t ee m et on 2- 5- 2012 and Respondent 4 was for being appoint ed by it s recom m endat ion dat ed 3- 5- 2012. I t was specifically m ent ioned in Par a 4 of t he writ pet it ion t hat t he second charge- sheet was dat ed 3- 3- 2012 concerning t he working of Respondent 4 during t he period 18- 9- 2000 t o 19- 7- 2007 in respect of Birokhal Group of Villages Pum ping Wat er Supply Schem e and t he t hird charge- sheet dat ed 9- 4- 2012 was concerning t he schem e of ut ilisat ion of sewage for irr igat ion purpose for t he Veer Chander Singh Garhwali Audyogik Universit y during 18- 11- 2000 t o 30- 6- 2007. The subm ission on behalf of t he appellant was t hat t his m at er ial, nam ely, t hat t he charge- sheet s were pending against Respondent 4, was not placed before t he Select ion Com m it t ee at all. There t hat Respondent 4 had not replied t o t he charge- sheet s nor wit h respect t o t he fact t hat pendency of t he charge- sheet s against Respondent 4, was not brought t he Select ion Com m it t ee. The Division Bench of t he High Court t he aspect of t o has given seniorit y of t he engineers concerned, and alt hough t he issue w it h respect t o t he int egrit y of t he officer, t o be appoint ed t o t he high posit ion of Managing Direct or, was raised in t his writ pet it ion, t he sam e has been decided against all canons of set t led laws. disput e, what soever, im port ance only t he not ice of t o I t t he t o him , t o accept is not possible charge- sheet s is seen t his 1 5 . subm ission. The charges in t he charge- sheet are from 2006 t he period st art ing concerning onwards. What ever was defence t he Respondent 4, he ought t o have replied t o t he charge- sheet , and he could not have decided it for him self t he t hat since according charge- sheet was not issued by t he disciplinary aut horit y, he was going t o ignore t he sam e. Not hing prevent ed him from placing on record his viewpoint t hat t he m ot ivat ed. That apart , as record, t he Chairm an of t he Nigam had signed on t he charge- sheet approving t he sam e and it is, t herefore, t hat t he inquir y officer had issued t he charge- sheet . The Chair m an of t he Nigam is t he Secret ary of t he Wat er Supply Depart m ent . He had t aken som e t hree m ont hs' t im e aft er t he not e was put up t o him , t o approve t he charge- sheet . He was also a m em ber of t he Select ion Com m it t ee which consist ed of 5 senior officers of t he St at e. I t was surely expect ed of him t o bring it t o t he not ice of t he Select ion Com m it t ee t hat charge- sheet s were pending against Respondent 4. Respondent 4 m ay have his defence on t he m erit s of t he charges. All t hat we can say is t hat t he fact of pending charge- sheet s ought t o have been placed before t he Select ion Com m it t ee. I n t he absence of such a very vit al m at er ial being placed before t he Com m it t ee went int o t he aspect of det erm ining t he m erit wit hout having t he benefit of t his vit al m at erial which was against Respondent 4. I f t hese charge- sheet s were m ade available t o t he Com m it t ee, it would have t aken it s decision aft er considering t he sam e, and t he principles laid down by I ndia v. K.V. Jankiram an [ Union of I ndia v. K.V. Jankir am an, ( 1991) 4 SCC 109 : 1993 SCC ( L&S) 387 : ( 1993) 23 ATC 322] would have squarely applied t o Respondent 4's case. His claim for prom ot ion would have been kept in a sealed cover and he would have been asked t o wait unt il t he enquir y was com plet e. t he Select ion Com m it t ee, in Union of t his Court fact negat ed by I t was also subm it t ed t hat t he charge- 1 9 . sheet dat ed 5- 12- 2011 was in fact a show- cause not ice. We are not im pressed at all by t his subm ission which t he second affidavit of Shri S. Raj u. I n any case, whet her it was a charge- sheet or a show- cause not ice, it was a docum ent im put ing allegat ions against Respondent 4. When any high officer is t o be appoint ed t o t he posit ion of Managing Direct or, obviously his int egr it y has t o be gone int o and t he m at er ial whichever is t here, eit her in his favour or against him , has t o be placed before t he Select ion Com m it t ee. The Chair m an of t he Nigam has cert ainly not conduct ed him self appropriat ely in not placing t hese charge- sheet s I n absence before t hereof, t he m erit ( including absence of it ) which t o be assessed could not be required assessed correct ly. t he Select ion Com m it t ee. t hat t he High Court held We are equally or m ore appalled at t he 2 2 . m anner in which t he Division Bench concerned of t he High Court has handled t he m at t er. The High Court has t ot ally ignored t he law on t his aspect . The relevant Rule 5 was brought t o t he not ice of t he High Court . Subm issions were m ade t hereon, and yet perm it t ed t he select ors t o ignore alt oget her t he charges inasm uch as according t o t he Division Bench, t he sam e bears only an accusat ion against him and t hat t he int egr it y of a person cannot be quest ioned only on t he basis of an allegat ion against him . As st at ed earlier we are not concerned wit h t he m erit s of t he allegat ions. The Select ion Com m it t ee was not apprised of t he t hree charge- sheet s at all. This was clearly in breach of Rule 5, and t he High Court has erred in ignor ing t his aspect . t he 2 3 . I n view of t hese fact s, t he select ion of Respondent 4 was clearly fault ed. The select ion was in breach of t he requirem ent s of Rule 5 and, t herefore, it will have t o be set aside. The High Court has also seriously erred in not allow ing t he writ pet it ion of t he circum st ances, we allow t his appeal, set aside t he j udgm ent rendered by t he Division Bench of t he Ut t arakhand High Court . t he appellant herein. I n Prayer A m ade in t he writ pet it ion w ill 2 4 . st and grant ed, nam ely, t hat t he select ion and appoint m ent of Respondent 4 will st and set aside. I nasm uch as Respondent 4 has worked all t his t im e as Managing Direct or, what ever salary and em olum ent s he has received, t hough on t he basis of a fault y select ion, w ill not be recovered from him . However, as a consequence of t his order, he will now be im m ediat ely placed in t he posit ion which he was occupying pr ior t o his select ion as Managing Direct or of t he Nigam . I t will be for t he Nigam t o call for anot her Select ion t he Com m it t ee and consider whosoever are eligible officers. Their full record will be placed before t he Select ion Com m it t ee, and t hereaft er it will be decided as t o who should be select ed as t he Managing Direct or of t he Nigam . 2 5 . The appeal is allowed in t hese t erm s, wit h cost s. Respondent 4 will pay cost s of Rs 50,000 and Respondent 2 Nigam w ill pay cost s of Rs 50,000 t o t he appellant . Respondent 2 will be at libert y t o recover t his am ount of cost s from t he t hen Chairm an of t he Nigam . 67 t hat Aft er expedit iously. t herein such as 2 6 . Before we conclude, we m ust accord our dist ress and shock at t he m anner in which t he fact s have unfolded in t his m at t er. The public corporat ions like t he Wat er Supply and Sewerage Board ent er int o t he cont ract s of hundreds of crores of rupees. The persons occupying high t hat of Managing posit ions Direct or have a great responsibilit y t o see t o it t hat t hese schem es are im plem ent ed honest ly I ndependence, I ndian cit ies and villages cont inue t o have a ser ious problem of get t ing good pot able wat er t o dr ink. There is also a serious problem of having a proper sewerage syst em . The officers at t he high level have a good salary and perquisit es. They have got t o be above board. To qualify for prom ot ion t o such post s, t he t o have an is expect ed m inim um unblem ished record. The law and procedure of select ion t here are allegat ions against t he candidat es, was laid down I ndia v. K.V. in Jankiram an Jankiram an, ( 1991) 4 SCC 109 : 1993 SCC ( L&S) 387 : ( 1993) 23 ATC 322] , way back in t he year 1991. I f t he high- ranking officers com e out wit h a devise t o circum vent t he law by suppr essing t he pending charge- sheet s against favoured candidat e, it is a serious m at t er. The Chairm an is supposed t o be an I AS officer. These officers are given a prot ect ion under t he Const it ut ion it self. I f such officers are t o act in breach of t he law laid down by t his Court , it would result int o officers of doubt ful int egr it y get t ing int o higher posit ions. Luckily, in t his present m at t er, t he pet it ioner who is an t he appoint m ent of Respondent 4 and which is how t he suppression of t he m at erial cam e int o light . such post s when case [ Union int erest ed cont est ed candidat e t o t he suppression of t he Nigam , we cannot t he Having decr ied t he role of t he t hen 2 7 . rem ain Chair m an of t hat a Division Bench oblivious of presided over by t he Chief Just ice of t he High Court has condoned such serious breaches in approving relevant m at erial from t he Select ion Com m it t ee, which is m ost unfort unat e and deplorable t o say t he least . Such j udgm ent s would lead t o t he approval of t he appoint m ent of persons of doubt ful int egrit y in higher adm inist rat ive posit ions. Apart from t hat , it w ill lead t he people t o doubt t he int egrit y of t he Judges as well. Cit izens have a fait h in t he t he j udiciary because it is expect ed t o render j ust ice even- handedly. The m em bers of higher j udiciar y are grant ed a const it ut ional prot ect ion so t hat t hey funct ion w it hout fear and favour and not m isapply t he law . I t is such orders which br ing t he j udiciary int o disreput e. We rat her refrain from saying anyt hing m ore.” I n t erm s of t he j udgm ent rendered 5. by Apex Court , pet it ioner was revert ed back as Chief Engineer ( Level- I I ) w.e.f. t hereaft er ret ired 12.09.2013 and he from service on 31.10.2013.

6. By a let t er dat ed 13.05.2014 issued by General Manager, Peyj al Nigam , pet it ioner was inform ed t hat in view of pendency of four disciplinary proceedings against him , it is not possible t o release his dues. Thus, feeling aggrieved, pet it ioner filed t his writ pet it ion, seeking t he following reliefs: - ( i) To issue a writ or der or direct ion in t he t he nat ure of cert iorari im pugned let t er dat ed 13.05.2014 issued by t he Respondent No. 3 ( Annexure No. 8 t o t he writ pet it ion) for quashing ( ii) To issue a writ or der or direct ion in t he nat ure of m andam us com m anding t he Respondent No. 2 t o fort hwit h release t he t he out st anding pet it ioner given in Para 17 of t he Writ Pet it ion. fort hwit h, det ails whereof benefit s ret iral t o ( iii) To issue a writ or der or direct ion in t he nat ure of m andam us com m anding t he Respondent No. 2 t o pay int erest on t he delayed paym ent at a rat e t o be specified by t his Hon’ble Court . Learned Counsel for t he pet it ioner 7. subm it s t hat since pet it ioner ret ired in 2013, t herefore, it was incum bent upon t he respondent s t o im m ediat ely release his ret iral dues. He furt her subm it s t hat because of delay in releasing t he ret iral dues, pet it ioner is ent it led t o int erest on t he delayed paym ent . He relies upon j udgm ent s rendered by coordinat e Bench in WPSB No. 511 of 2018, WPSB No. 5 of 2020 and WPSB No. 490 of 2021 in regarding support of his cont ent ion int erest . learned 8. Mr. Bhupendra Bisht , counsel appearing for Peyj al Nigam , however, has drawn our at t ent ion t o t he count er affidavit dat ed 18.11.2014 filed by Mr. G.C. Pandey, Superint ending Engineer, Nainit al Circle, where t he illegalit ies t hat because of st at ed com m it t ed by t he pet it ioner, Peyj al Nigam suffered loss running int o several crores of rupees. I n para 7 of t he said affidavit , it is st at ed t hat despit e t he observat ion m ade by Apex Court , pet it ioner is not cooperat ing wit h t he Enquiry Officer and is causing delay in disposal of t he enquiry proceedings.

9. Learned counsel for Peyj al Nigam has also drawn our at t ent ion t o order dat ed 10.10.2014 passed by coordinat e Bench in a writ pet it ion filed by Peyj al Nigam , which is num bered as WPSB No. 354 of 2014. By t he said writ pet it ion, Peyj al Nigam had sought a direct ion t o t he Com pet ent Aut horit y t o expedit e t he disciplinary enquiry pending against t he pet it ioner.

10. Mr. Bhupender Bisht , learned counsel for Peyj al Nigam has also drawn our at t ent ion t o t he orders passed in t his writ pet it ion by coordinat e Bench on 06.09.2018 and 10.12.2018, whereby t he t im e was grant ed t he enquiries disciplinary pet it ioner. He subm it s t hat pet it ioner him self was causing delay in conclusion at t ribut able t o him , t herefore, he cannot t ake benefit of his own wrong by t he enquiry and t o conclude t he delay against claim ing int erest on delayed paym ent of his dues. t hat t here in which

11.( i) Peyj al Nigam has filed an affidavit in support of t im e ext ension applicat ion in Decem ber, 2018, m ent ioned disciplinary enquiries pending against t he pet it ioner; in t he first enquiry, in respect of Kailad Drinking Wat er Schem e, enquiry t he report was supplied t o pet it ioner and he was asked t o give reply, but inst ead of giving reply he filed a Claim Pet it ion No. 08/ N.B/ D.B./ 2015 before Ut t arakhand Service Tribunal and t he Tribunal allowed t he filed by pet it ioner and claim pet it ion t he quashed t o Enquiry Aut horit y was perm it t ed proceed afresh against t he pet it ioner, in accordance wit h subm it t ed t hat in t erm s of j udgm ent , rendered by charge sheet was issued t o pet it ioner by t he Disciplinary Aut horit y on 18.06.2016 and pet it ioner has not replied t o t he afresh charge sheet . t he charge sheet and learned Tribunal, Thus, Public law. ( ii) Regarding enquiry, in respect of t ender of Nanghat Peyj al process Schem e, it is st at ed t hat t he Enquiry Officer subm it t ed report , which was served upon pet it ioner asking him t o give reply by 25.10.2018, however, pet it ioner is not cooperat ing and he has not subm it t ed reply, wit hin t he given t im e. ( iii) Regarding t hird enquiry, in respect of const ruct ion work of Bironkhal Village Joint Pum ping Schem e, it is st at ed t hat as per conclusion recorded by Enquiry Officer, due t o irregularit ies com m it t ed t he pet it ioner, Peyj al Nigam has suffered loss amounting to ₹2,49,168/ - and t he Chairm an of Peyj al Nigam has t o pass necessary order. t he est im at e irregularit ies com m it t ed by ( iv) Regarding fourt h enquiry, in respect t he pet it ioner in t he Schem e, it is st at ed t hat prim a facie pet it ioner was found t o have raised const ruct ion wit hout approval from t he Com pet ent Aut horit y, t hereby funds wit hout get t ing divert ing revised approval breaching t he necessary condit ions of t he Governm ent Order. I t is furt her st at ed t hat pet it ioner spent funds am ount ing t o heads, ₹173.11 const ruct ing only four t anks as against proposed 25 t anks and also const ruct ed unnecessary prot ect ion wall causing a loss of ₹1,48,925.40 to the Depart m ent . I t is furt her st at ed t hat Chairm an has appoint ed Sri Arj un Singh, Addit ional Secret ary, Governm ent of Ut t arkahand t o conduct re- enquiry and subm it his report , wit hin one m ont h. learned 12. Mr. Bhupender Bisht , counsel appearing for Peyj al Nigam t hus cont ends t hat as pet it ioner him self is inst rum ent al in causing delay in disposal t he disciplinary enquiries pending t he grievance against him , raised by him wit hout any subst ance and his claim for int erest is, t hus, unsust ainable in t he eyes of law. in his writ pet it ion t herefore, t hat subm it s inst ruct ions,

13. Learned counsel for Peyj al Nigam , t he disciplinary enquiry init iat ed against t he pet it ioner have concluded and t hree punishm ent orders were passed against him in 2019; first order was passed on 11.03.2019, whereby ₹1,04,925/- was ordered t o be recovered from him ; t hereaft er anot her order was passed on 11.03.2019, whereby a sum of a ₹25,922/ - was ordered t o be recovered from him ; t hereaft er anot her order was passed on 01.05.2019, whereby a sum of ₹22,339/ - was ordered t o be recovered from t he pet it ioner. He furt her subm it s t hat in t he fourt h disciplinary enquiry, charge was not proved against pet it ioner final order was passed on 10.08.2022. Thus, he subm it s t hat as disciplinary proceedings were cont inuing against 10.08.2022, t herefore, it was not possible t o release his m onet ary dues. pet it ioner t he t ill t hat

14. From t he adm ission m ade by learned counsel for Peyj al Nigam , it is apparent disciplinary enquiries init iat ed against pet it ioner have now concluded. Therefore, respondent s are under t he dut y t o release t he ret iral dues t o t he pet it ioner, if already not released, wit hout any furt her delay. t he t o is, accordingly, 15. The writ pet it ion t he disposed of wit h a direct ion Com pet ent Aut horit y in t he Peyj al Nigam t o release all out st anding dues t o t he pet it ioner, wit hin six weeks dat e of product ion of cert ified copy of t his order. I f t he ret iral dues are not released wit hin t he st ipulat ed t im e, t hen pet it ioner shall be ent it led t o sim ple int erest at t he rat e of six percent per annum w.e.f. 10.08.2022, on such delayed paym ent of ret iral dues. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

25.06.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d13695 12ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1 FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL