Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2068
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
Subhash Chand - Petitioner
Versus
State of NCT Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 10054 of 2018
Decided On : 24-09-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, Mr. Krishna Kumar, Mr. P. Mathur and Mr. Siddharth Jha, Advs.
For the Respondent: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, GNCTD with Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Adv.
The disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the procedural requirements outlined in the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceedings - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14, Rule 15, Rule 19
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a memorandum proposing dismissal from service based on a criminal conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner argued that the disciplinary proceedings were misguided and did not follow the appropriate rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's argument, stating that the disciplinary proceedings followed the correct procedure under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The court granted the petitioner a further opportunity to submit a representation to the disciplinary authority.
Issues: Validity of the disciplinary proceedings under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary proceedings followed the correct procedure under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The petitioner was granted a further opportunity to submit a representation to the disciplinary authority.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with no orders as to costs.
1. This writ petition assails the memorandum dated 12th September, 2018, issued to the petitioner by the Secretary, Legislative Assembly, NCT of Delhi in his capacity as disciplinary authority of the petitioner. This memorandum reads thus :
“MEMORANDUM
WHEREAS Shri Subhash Chandra, Junior Assistant (Grade IV DASS) has been convicted on a criminal charge by the Hon’ble Court of Shri A.S. Yadav, Spl Judge on 06.07.2010 u/s 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable u/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-,
And WHEREAS on a careful consideration of the inquiry report submitted by Shri L.S. Yadav, Inquiry Officer under Rule 14 (copy of which was already provided to Shri Subhash Chandra) and the reply of Shri Subhash Chandra to the inquiry report, the undersigned has provisionally come to the consclusion that Shri Subhash Chandra is not a fit person to be retained in service and accordingly proposes to impose on him the penalty of dismissal from service’
NOW, THEREFORE, Shri Subhash Chandra is hereby given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed above Any representation which he may wish to make against the penalty proposed will be considered by the undersigned. Such a representation, if any, should be made in writing and submitted so as to reach the undersigned not later than fifteen days from the date of receipt of this memorandum by Shri Subhash Chandra.
The receipt of this memorandum should be acknowledged.”
2. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, GNCTD raises a preliminary objection that this writ petition would be maintainable before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the learned CAT”). Though the GNCTD, and officers under the GNCTD are normally subject to the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal, I am not fully convinced that employees of the Legislative Assembly of the GNCTD would also have to move the learned Tribunal and would stand foreclosed from maintaining this writ petition before this Court. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat is not in possession of any notification specifically notifying the Legislative Assembly as amenable to the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal.
3. Be that as it may, in view of the order that I am passing in this matter, it may not be necessary to enter into this dispute.
4. Briefly stated, disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the petitioner, resulted in an enquiry, cumulating in an enquiry report, dated 11th April, 2018, which opined that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. The copy of the said enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner, who submitted his response, thereto, on 4th May, 2018.
5. The petitioner was next visited with the impugned memorandum dated 12th September, 2018, which, as is apparent from a reading thereof the above, provisionally came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service and proposed to impose, on him, the penalty of dismissal from service.
6. Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned memorandum, dated 12th September, 2018, was completely misguided. He submits that the proceedings against his client were under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as “in the CCS (CCA) Rules”] and that, in the regime applicable to his client under the said Rules, the response of a charged officer, to the Inquiry Report, had, thereafter, to result in an order, of the disciplinary authority, under Rule 15(6). His submission is that the impugned memorandum, dated 12th September, 2018, was completely misguided, as such a memorandum was relatable to the proviso to Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, which was not available for invocation where an enquiry had already taken place under Rules 14 and 15 thereof.
7. According to learned counsel, once disciplinary proceedings had been initiat
