High Court · 2025
Case Details
Heard Mr. Rajan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the Director of the Malviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur on deputation and has retired from Moti Lal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad on 30.4.2019. By means of the impugned order, the penalty of 10% cut per month in the pension for a period of one year with immediate effect has been made. Earlier five Inquiry Committees were constituted in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner and all of the Inquiry Committees have found no article of charges to be proved against the petitioner. The aforesaid inquiry reports were disagreed by the respondents and thereafter, respondents have issued a notice against which the petitioner has filed a reply and requested some documents, to submit the answer to the disagreement note of the respondents. However, instead of supplying the aforesaid documents, the respondents by the impugned order has held that providing of such documents would amount to de novo inquiry. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order does not specify as to what is the misconduct against the petitioner. The findings with regard to misconduct have to be specifically recorded in the impugned order to sustain the order under Rule 8(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. In the present case, no finding with regard to the misconduct and only the proceedings and various communications held between CVC and the respondent authorities have been given note of. He submits that notice has also be taken of the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that unless a specific finding is recorded with regard to the misconduct against the petitioner, then the same cannot be considered in the impugned order as a punishment and the order itself is laconic. No punishment has been made against the members of the Committee, who were in fact instrumental in the selection proceedings of the alleged appointment. The petitioner has been singled out for the punishment which itself shows arbitrary nature of the proceedings against the petitioner. Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has opposed the writ petition and submits that the petitioner while being the Director of the Malviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur has proceeded to appoint Selection Committee, which was not in accordance with law. The Selection Committee was subject matter of challenge before the Rajasthan High Court and by judgment dated 29.5.2015 the finding with regard to fraud has been recorded. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that although he could not dispute the fact that no finding of misconduct is recorded in the impugned order. However, he submits that by way of reference of the judgment of Rajasthan High Court, it is to be construed that very serious findings have been recorded against the petitioner. In this respect, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon paragraph 62, which is quoted hereunder:- "62. Applying the principles deduciable from the law declared by the Apex Court of the land in the case of M. Tripura Sundari (supra), appointment of respondent No.5, with inferior qualifications and/or for want of qualifications as contemplated under the relevant Recruitment Rules amounts to a fraud on public and no court can become a party to perpetuation of any illegality and fraudulent practice. The appointment of respondent No.5, is contrary of Status of NIDs and the relevant Recruitment Rules. The allegations of malice and faul play, in the singular facts of the case at hand have some substance. Keeping in view the factual matrix and materials available on record this Court is persuaded that appointment of respondent No.5 (Dr. A.K. Solanki) on the post of "Registrar" of MNIT, Jaipur; has been made in utter disregard with impunity of law and relevant Recruitment Rules for he did not possess the required essential qualifications. By now it is well settled that the power of the Court to mould the relief, according to need of the situation is very much available in exercise of writ jurisdiction to do complete justice, in order to ensure fair play, trust, faith and transparency in the matter of public employment." However, at this stage, learned counsel for the respondents agree to the fact that in the impugned order there is no finding recorded against the petitioner with regard to any misconduct and submits that the matter may be remanded back to the authority concerned for decision afresh. It is to be seen that in the matter of deduction of pension on account of any conduct of the employee, the finding with regard to misconduct is required to be recorded by the disciplinary authority. The order impugned does not reflect that any finding of misconduct has been recorded. In view of the aforesaid, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 19.2.2025 is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the authority concerned to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The documents relied upon by the respondents while passing a fresh order shall be served on the petitioner and the petitioner would be granted an opportunity to give his objection to the aforesaid document and the disagreement note to the inquiry report. The document relied upon by the respondents shall be served within a period of one month from today. If any document has been prior served on the petitioner, then the same is not required to be served and the fresh order would be passed within a period of two months. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Bhaskar BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Heard Mr. Rajan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the Director of the Malviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur on deputation and has retired from Moti Lal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad on 30.4.2019. By means of the impugned order, the penalty of 10% cut per month in the pension for a period of one year with immediate effect has been made. Earlier five Inquiry Committees were constituted in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner and all of the Inquiry Committees have found no article of charges to be proved against the petitioner. The aforesaid inquiry reports were disagreed by the respondents and thereafter, respondents have issued a notice against which the petitioner has filed a reply and requested some documents, to submit the answer to the disagreement note of the respondents. However, instead of supplying the aforesaid documents, the respondents by the impugned order has held that providing of such documents would amount to de novo inquiry. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order does not specify as to what is the misconduct against the petitioner. The findings with regard to misconduct have to be specifically recorded in the impugned order to sustain the order under Rule 8(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. In the present case, no finding with regard to the misconduct and only the proceedings and various communications held between CVC and the respondent authorities have been given note of. He submits that notice has also be taken of the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that unless a specific finding is recorded with regard to the misconduct against the petitioner, then the same cannot be considered in the impugned order as a punishment and the order itself is laconic. No punishment has been made against the members of the Committee, who were in fact instrumental in the selection proceedings of the alleged appointment. The petitioner has been singled out for the punishment which itself shows arbitrary nature of the proceedings against the petitioner. Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has opposed the writ petition and submits that the petitioner while being the Director of the Malviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur has proceeded to appoint Selection Committee, which was not in accordance with law. The Selection Committee was subject matter of challenge before the Rajasthan High Court and by judgment dated 29.5.2015 the finding with regard to fraud has been recorded. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that although he could not dispute the fact that no finding of misconduct is recorded in the impugned order. However, he submits that by way of reference of the judgment of Rajasthan High Court, it is to be construed that very serious findings have been recorded against the petitioner. In this respect, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon paragraph 62, which is quoted hereunder:- "62. Applying the principles deduciable from the law declared by the Apex Court of the land in the case of M. Tripura Sundari (supra), appointment of respondent No.5, with inferior qualifications and/or for want of qualifications as contemplated under the relevant Recruitment Rules amounts to a fraud on public and no court can become a party to perpetuation of any illegality and fraudulent practice. The appointment of respondent No.5, is contrary of Status of NIDs and the relevant Recruitment Rules. The allegations of malice and faul play, in the singular facts of the case at hand have some substance. Keeping in view the factual matrix and materials available on record this Court is persuaded that appointment of respondent No.5 (Dr. A.K. Solanki) on the post of "Registrar" of MNIT, Jaipur; has been made in utter disregard with impunity of law and relevant Recruitment Rules for he did not possess the required essential qualifications. By now it is well settled that the power of the Court to mould the relief, according to need of the situation is very much available in exercise of writ jurisdiction to do complete justice, in order to ensure fair play, trust, faith and transparency in the matter of public employment." However, at this stage, learned counsel for the respondents agree to the fact that in the impugned order there is no finding recorded against the petitioner with regard to any misconduct and submits that the matter may be remanded back to the authority concerned for decision afresh. It is to be seen that in the matter of deduction of pension on account of any conduct of the employee, the finding with regard to misconduct is required to be recorded by the disciplinary authority. The order impugned does not reflect that any finding of misconduct has been recorded. In view of the aforesaid, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 19.2.2025 is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the authority concerned to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The documents relied upon by the respondents while passing a fresh order shall be served on the petitioner and the petitioner would be granted an opportunity to give his objection to the aforesaid document and the disagreement note to the inquiry report. The document relied upon by the respondents shall be served within a period of one month from today. If any document has been prior served on the petitioner, then the same is not required to be served and the fresh order would be passed within a period of two months. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Bhaskar BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad