Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
ATUL VASHISHT – Petitioner
Versus
DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 2866 of 2021
Decided On : 04-04-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankur Chhibber.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi.
Point of Law: Rule 27 (c) enables the DA to pass appropriate orders including the order of de novo inquiry.
Headnote:
Central Civil Service Rules, 1965 - Rule 14, 15(2) and 27 (c) - Misconduct - Challenging Note of Disagreement - Petitioner who is working as an UDC in respondent Organization was issued a Memorandum for alleged misconduct stated to have been committed by him - Proceedings were held by IO who in his report has not found charges framed against petitioner as proved - Petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court challenging Note of Disagreement - Whether impugned Note of Disagreement given by DA is proper and justified.
Finding of the Court:
It is not disputed that petitioner has submitted his representation on Note of Disagreement of DA - If that be so, it is for DA to consider representation along with record of inquiry and pass an order on same - No doubt, petitioner has heavily relied upon IO’s report which exonerates him of all charges, but Rule 15 of Rules of 1965 which stipulates action to be taken on inquiry report, this Court is of view that DA must be allowed to take action on inquiry report - If an order is passed against petitioner, surely liberty would be with petitioner to seek such remedy as available under Rules - DA is required to consider representation made by petitioner - It may so happen that DA may agree with pleas advanced by petitioner and accept report and thereby close proceedings - In present case, there is no de novo inquiry, but a Note of Disagreement which is permissible under Rule 15(2) of Rules of 1965, Court do not see any reason to interfere with impugned Note of Disagreement.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
“In the premises aforesaid, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the Note of Disagreement dated 02.02.2021 issued by the Member (Admin.) holding the present Petitioner guilty of the charges levied against him along with the proceedings pending against the petitioner.
(b) Direct the Member (Admin.) of DUSIB for revocation of the suspension order of the present petitioner as the present petitioner has been suspended since September, 2014 and has now been exonerated twice by the Inquiry Officer duly appointed by the Respondent and to direct the Respondent to reinstate as per the due seniority cadre.
(c) Direct the concerned authority of DUSIB to release the remunerations of the present Petitioner which have been held back on account of suspension since September, 2014.
(d) Pass such other and further orders and/or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.”
2. The challenge in this petition is to a Note of Disagreement dated February 2, 2021 whereby the Disciplinary Authority (‘DA’ for short) tentatively disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer (‘IO’ for short) had called upon the petitioner to submit a representation with regard to the same.
3. The facts as noted form the record are that the petitioner who is working as an UDC in the respondent Organization was issued a Memorandum dated December 19, 2014 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (‘Rules of 1965’, for short) for alleged misconduct stated to have been committed by him. Pursuant thereto, proceedings were held by the IO who in his report dated June 5, 2018 has not found the charges framed against the petitioner as “proved.” This resulted in the DA issuing Note of Disagreement dated September 11, 2018 (first note of disagreement) and calling upon the petitioner to make a representation to the same. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition being W.P.(C) 11583/2018 before this Court challenging the Note of Disagreement dated September 11, 2018.
4. A plea was also raised by the petitioner, in those proceedings, that the advice of the CVC has not been furnished to him. This Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition by upholding the Note of Disagreement, but directing the respondent to supply the copy CVC advice to the petitioner within a week and the petitioner was to file a response to the Note of Disagreement, which had to be decided within four weeks.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent instead of acting on the Note of Disagreement, had, vide order dated May 22, 2019 decided to hold a de novo inquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner vide his notice dated June 25, 2019 registered his opposition the conduct of the de novo proceedings being contrary to the order passed by this Court on October 26, 2018. Concedingly, petitioner has not challenged the decision of the respondent issued vide office order dated May 22, 2019 to hold a de novo inquiry. The respondent did conduct de novo proceedings through the same IO who after conducting the proceedings submitted his report dated July 15, 2020, wherein he again exonerated the petitioner of all the charges. It is on this inquiry report, the impugned Note of Disagreement dated February 2, 2021 (second Note of Disagreement) has been furnished to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit a representation on the same.
6. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent justifying the Note of Disagreement dated February 2, 2021 by relying upon Rule 15(2) of the Rules of 1965 wherein the DA recorded its own reasons to disagree with the inquiry report dated July 15, 2020. In other words, impugned action is supported by the Rules of 1965. The respondent has also justified the Note of Disagreeme
