SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.

CM APPL. 4407/2019 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. This application is, accordingly, disposed of.

W.P.(C) No. 981/2019

3. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby declaring the process of inquiry and the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and consequently memorandum dated 31.08.2006 alleging misconduct and placing the petitioner on suspension without pay as null and void.

4. Further seeks direction thereby declaring the waving the immunity of the petitioner as null and void. Further seeks direction thereby declaring the summary dismissal by respondent no.2 as null and void.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 09.08.1995 for the post of Senior Procurement Manager, in Purchase and Transport Service for a short term appointment for 5 months. In accordance with the Government of India (GOI) policy, the petitioner applied for clearances and the approval for the said job. The permission was given to the petitioner by Ministry of Defence (Finance) and Ministry of External Affairs. However, in December, 2005, the petitioner came to know from media reports that he is being investigated for allegedly favouring Indian companies using "questionable technicalities" leading to award of certain contracts to various companies. On 15.12.2005, the petitioner sent an email to the Under Secretary-General, Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) and requested for the copy of the Audit reports and further requested for urgent meetings. Despite such an affirmative action on part of the petitioner, no reply was received from the office of Under Secretary- General. On 16.01.2006, the petitioner was placed on "Special leave with full pay" vide the decision, the Chef de Cabinet Memorandum. On 26.01.2006, the petitioner met the Under Secretary-General, Department Of Management (DM) in the presence of Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resource Management (OHRM), of respondent No. 2 United Nations Organization (UNO) where he was handed over the Memorandum dated 16.01.2006 and a Memorandum dated 26.01.2006 along with an incomplete copy of the Audit report and was asked to give his comments by 01.02.2006. On 27.01.2006, the petitioner requested for complete copy of the Audit Report and the case files that were required to reply to the Audit report. On 30.01.2006, the petitioner received an e-mail from Special Assistant to the Under Secretary-General OIOS declining the request of documents to the petitioner. In the month of January, 2006, the respondent No. 2 formed the Procurement Task Force (PTF) to address all procurement matters referred to the OIOS. 06.02.2006, the petitioner had a meeting with Mr. Burnham who handed over only partial copy of the draft Audit report (AP 2005/600/20) permitting the petitioner only to read the same but refused to give a copy to the petitioner. On 11.02.2006, the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent no. 3 stating that due process and fairness were not being followed in his case. However, on 24.03.2006, the petitioner vide his email gave a comprehensive reply to the letter dated 10.03.2006 and sought clarification with regard certain aspects. On 31.03.2006, the official in her email clarified the queries of the petitioner and assured that the letter will still be considered and replied even if the petitioner does not want it to be considered as a Review. On 05.04.2006, the petitioner requested that his appeal be considered as it is. On 31.08.2006, the Division for Orgnizational Development, OHRM, United Nations on the basis of the PTF report, charged the petitioner with misconduct and suspended from duty without pay for 3 months. The petitioner was also asked to file written statement or any explanation he might wish to give. In the month of September, 2006, the petitioner requested the officials of respondent No. 2 on various occasions for supply of relevant documents stated to