Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Vinod Kumar Kataria - Petitioner
Versus
UOI and Ors - Respondents
W.P.(C) 12674 of 2019, C.M. Nos. 51744 of 2019 & 11951 of 2020, W.P.(C) 4421 of 2020, CM Nos. 15923 of 2020 & 33264 of 2020
Decided On : 23-06-2021
CCS (Conduct) Rules – Rules 10, 14, 58 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 –Charge Sheet - Order of transfer – Order of Suspension – Disciplinary Proceedings – Challenged – Petition has been filed with prayers quash and set aside the impugned Officer order of respondents (CCRT) issued vide declaring as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory – Direct respondents (MoC) to constitute committee on respondents (CCRT) to investigate matter that under which authority respondents (CCRT) has issued this illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory Office Order of transfer and also take necessary disciplinary action against respondents (CCRT) in accordance to CCS (Conduct) Rules. – Issue of Writ Order of Quo-warranto as under which authority Honaray Chairperson has power to promote to the post of Deputy Director to Director. – Issue a Writ Order of Prohibition to prohibit/stop the respondents to post out the petitioner from CCRT New Delhi to any other place of India as the W,P (C )-11592/2019 is sub judiced and pending before this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of Justice. – Issue a Writ Order of Mandamus, quo-warranto and prohibition or any other Writ/Directions/Order as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Finding of the Court : CCRT is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and as such is regulated in terms of Rule 58A of the service Byelaws, whereby the Rules of 1965 have been made applicable, mutatis mutandis to the employees of CCRT. – By operation of Rule 58A, the Rules of 1965 have been made applicable to the employees of CCRT including the petitioner herein. – There is no challenge to vires of Rule 58A of the service Byelaws by which the Rules of 1965 have been made applicable to the employees of CCRT. – On strength of said rule, respondent No.2 is within his right to suspend and issue Memorandum to the petitioner and the same cannot be faulted– Court may also state here that mere suspension of an employee would not amount to cessation of service. – On suspension, employee is kept away from office so that he does not tamper with evidence or influence any of witnesses so to be produced by management before Enquiry Officer. – Court also note, that order of suspension has been reviewed by respondents, thereby extending same, which has not been challenged– Can charge sheet be quashed at this stage, when inquiry proceedings are going on against the petitioner. – Answer in this respect has to be “NO” in view of judgment of Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC28–It is also settled law that at charge sheet stage, Court will not go into correctness of charges. – It is for Inquiry Officer who has been appointed by Disciplinary Authority under rules which governs proceedings before whom evidence shall be led by both parties, to determine correctness of charges in his report. – Court do not see any merit in this petition.
Result : Petitions Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. At the outset I may state, vide this common order I shall decide, W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected applications as well as W.P.(C) 4421/2020 and connected applications, as the petitioner is common in both the petitions and the issue raised in the petitions are interconnected.
W.P.(C) 12674/2019
2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:
B. Direct the respondents (MoC) to constitute committee on respondents (CCRT) to investigate the matter that under which authority respondents (CCRT) has issued this illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory Office Order of transfer and also take necessary disciplinary action against the respondents (CCRT) in accordance to CCS (Conduct) Rules.
C. Issue of Writ Order of Quo-warranto as under which authority Honaray Chairperson has power to promote to the post of Deputy Director to Director.
D. Issue a Writ Order of Prohibition to prohibit/stop the respondents to post out the petitioner from CCRT New Delhi to any other place of India as the W,P (C)-11592/2019 is sub judiced and pending before this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of Justice.
E. Issue a Writ Order of Mandamus, quo-warranto and prohibition or any other Writ/Directions/Order as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
F. Award Cost.”
3. The petitioner, a post graduate was appointed to the post of Administrative Officer in Group ‘B’ service in Pay Band-2 (Rs. 9300-34800 + Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- w.e.f September 12, 2011 (‘Appointment Letter’, for short) in Centre for Cultural Resources & Training (‘CCRT’, for short), New Delhi under the Aegis of Ministry of Culture, respondent No.1.
4. The petitioner herein has preferred the present petition for quashing and setting aside the impugned Office Order issued by respondent No. 2 (Director, CCRT) vide CCRT/11017/07/2019 (Pt)/895 AND896 dated November 26, 2019 (‘impugned order’, for short). It is the case of the petitioner that vide the impugned order, the petitioner has been transferred to the CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur where there is no sanctioned post of an Administrative Officer.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in a complete malafide manner as the petitioner had already preferred a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) 1159/2019 against the respondent No.2/CCRT for pay scale anomaly and had also filed a complaint on November 25, 2019, addressed to the PMO.
6. That after the impugned order was issued, the petitioner had preferred a representation to the respondent No.2/CCRT on November 26, 2019 thereby seeking a) copy of policy page for existence of CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur in accordance to Ministry of Culture; and (b) copy of authorized/sanctioned post of Administrative Officer that exist in CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur.
7. It is his case that, instead of the providing the requisite information, the respondent No.2/ CCRT threatened the petitioner by reply dated November 26, 2019, wherein it is stated that instead of complying with the Transfer Order dated 26.11.2019, you are raising frivolous objections. It will be in your interest to proceed with the Transfer Order and do not indulge in any unwarranted correspondence.
8. It is stated by the petitioner that the impugned order is totally illegal, unjust and arbitrary.
9. Counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No. 2/CCRT. It is stated that the impugned order is purely administrative in nature, issued owing to exigencies of work and that there exists no malafide or illegality attached with the impugned order.
10. It is stated that the respondent No. 2/CCRT being an autonomous body under the administrative control of the Ministry of Culture, all appointments are governed by the rules framed by the apex body of the respon
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
