Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
H.S. Rai - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 700 of 2005
Decided On : 30-08-2022
Misappropriation - Employment Dispute - PDIL, CDA Rules - [Article 226, Misappropriation, PDIL, CDA Rules] - The court discussed the lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate the challenge to the penalty order dated 16th January 2003 passed against the petitioner. The PDIL did not have an office in Delhi, and the cause of action arose in Jharkhand, not Delhi. Therefore, the court found that the petition was not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of PDIL, was suspended and later penalized for misappropriation of medical expenses. He filed a writ petition seeking to quash the penalty order and reimbursement of entitlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the challenge to the penalty order due to the absence of PDIL's office in Delhi and the cause of action arising in Jharkhand.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate the challenge to the penalty order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lack of PDIL's office in Delhi and the cause of action arising in Jharkhand rendered the petition not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition due to lack of jurisdiction.
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner seeking the writ of certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 16th January 2003 and a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reimburse the petitioner to the extent of his entitlement.
2. The petitioner was an employee with Projects and Development India Ltd. (hereinafter "PDIL"), which is a government undertaking and controlled by the Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizer, Government of India. The petitioner joined the PDIL in 1974 in the pay scale of Rs.400-900/- and thereafter, was given regular pay scale of Rs.5400-9425/- since 1980 working as Deputy Project Manager.
3. The petitioner was served with a suspension order on 24th June 2002 issued by General Manager, PDIL, informing him about serious allegations against him for misappropriation of the company's money through reimbursement of medical expenses for abnormally large amount by submitting false, fictitious medical claim for self and family members. The petitioner was informed that during the period of suspension he would not be allowed to enter into the PDIL premises without a written permission of the competent authority, his ID card was surrendered and he was advised to sign the attendance sheet daily. He was made aware that he would be entitled to subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.
4. Thereafter, a Chargesheet Memo was issued against the petitioner on 22nd July 2002, whereby the following Article of Charges were framed against him:
"ARTICLE I:
Dr. H.S. Rai has been misappropriating Company's money by getting reimbursement of medical expenses for himself and for his wife Mrs. Lalita Rai by adopting malpractices and by submitting false and fictitious claims/declaration/statement regularly.
ARTICLE II:
Dr. H.S. Rai has claimed reimbursement of medical expenses for treatment for self and his wife by submitting false and fictitious medical claims and reimbursement of the same has been received by him regularly.
ARTICLE III:
The prescription indicate that on one specific date the repeat of medicine of previous two different dated is being done by two doctors on various occasions is with the sole moto to get the bill only and not the medicine.
Dr. Rai has submitted the claim form duly signed by him for reimbursement of medicines enclosing therewith two cash memos indicating the same medicines vide no.764 dated 24.5.2001 and 819 dated 25.5.2001 each amounting to Rs.564.55 purchased from the same chemist viz. Arjun Medical Hall, Sindri.
ARTICLE IV:
Dr. Rai has submitted the medical reimbursement claim against medical reference no. FCI/MED/8(8)/1402 dated 24.3.99 for his wife Mrs. Lalita Rai and self which has been signed by himself as Controlling Officer, whereas his HOD was very much present on the date and he was not authorized to sign as Controlling Officer.
ARTICLE V:
Dr. H.S. Rai himself and his wife have been purchasing abnormal over doses of certain specific high value medicines on regular repeated long term basis.
Dr. Rai has consumed 161 number of Envas-10 mg tablets in 29 days while his wife has consumed 84 Envas-10mg tablets in 29 days. He was advised a dose of 3.5 OD of Envas 10 mg.
Dr. Rai has claimed for reimbursement of medicines for self for 84 days as against 78 days as per prescribed by the attending Doctor.
Dr. Rai has also claimed for reimbursement of medicines for his wife Mrs. Lalita Rai for 98 days as against 78 days as prescribed by the attending Doctor.
ARTICLE VI:
As per the opinion of the CMO, PDIL, Noida that the medicines being purchased by the patient do not fot into any digonist procedure in practice and the doses referred/consumed by patients are also abnormally high and should led to many serious side effects. Since the so called side reactions are not visible, it concludes that the medicines are not being consumed at all which means the bills are being obtained from medi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of jurisdiction for a court to adjudicate a challenge to an order, and the impact of the absence of jurisdiction on the maintainabi....
The court established that disciplinary actions must be based on clear evidence of misconduct, and that responsibility for contract compliance lies with designated authorities, not subordinate office....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of action must arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court for the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Consti....
The principles of natural justice require that a person facing disciplinary action be given an opportunity to defend themselves, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and submit a repl....
The court emphasized that a dismissal must be proportionate to the misconduct and that procedural violations in disciplinary inquiries can invalidate the outcome.
High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 is contingent upon the presence of a cause of action within its territorial limits, as clarified by recent rulings.
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
