IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Shri Gautam Arora – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 1546 of 2022
Decided On : 18-07-2023
Disciplinary Action - Central Administrative Tribunal - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - [EPICs, Chargesheet, Election Commission] - Summary Electoral Roll Revision, Chargesheet, Communication from Election Commission, and the power of the Election Commission to recommend disciplinary action were discussed. The court found that the chargesheet issued was in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal and cannot be challenged without evidence of mala fide intention or lack of jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which partially allowed the Original Application and set aside the charge memo issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was working as an Administrative Officer and was posted on deemed deputation with the Election Commission. The charges against the petitioner related to incidents that occurred during a period when he was not working with the Election Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the chargesheet issued to the petitioner was in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal and cannot be challenged without evidence of mala fide intention or lack of jurisdiction. The court also noted that the petitioner had the opportunity to challenge the chargesheet but chose not to do so.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petition challenging the order of the Tribunal, communication from the Election Commission, and the chargesheet was sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the challenge to the chargesheet was unsustainable without evidence of mala fide intention or lack of jurisdiction. The court also emphasized that the petitioner had the opportunity to challenge the chargesheet but chose not to do so.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court clarified that the dismissal should not be construed as an expression on the merit of the charges framed against the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)--This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated September 18, 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in the Original Application being OA No.4189/2017 (`OA', for short) whereby the Tribunal has partially allowed the OA and set aside the charge memo dated April 16, 2014 issued to the petitioner with a further direction that the communication dated September 22, 2017 of the Election Commission of India (`Election Commission', for short) shall be treated as the one recommending the disciplinary action against the petitioner herein.
2. The brief facts relevant for the decision of the petition are that the petitioner is working as an Administrative Officer in DDU Hospital under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. On April, 2013, he was posted on deemed deputation with respondent No.3, Election Commission as AERO, Vikas Puri (AC-31), New Delhi and was put on the strength of the respondent No.4, i.e., Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi. He continued to work on the said position till the middle of March, 2014. Thereafter, he continued to work as Electoral Registration Officer till July 2016 on deemed deputation.
3. It was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that, he joined as AERO in April, 2013 and the schedule of Special Summary Revision of Electoral Rolls having January 1, 2013 as the qualifying date was announced from October 15, 2012 to January 10, 2013. The exercise of distribution of election identity cards prepared on the basis of the summary revision of 2012, was completed in the month of June, 2013.
4. According to the petitioner during the Summary Electoral Roll Revision, one Manvinder Singh was appointed as AERO, AC-31, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, whereas Sh. Ajay Rawal was posted as ERO of the same area till October 15, 2012 followed by Ajay Sharma, ERO, whereafter Smt. Manju Singh Kalshian joined as ERO of the same AC in place of Ajay Rawal on December 18, 2012. Manvinder Singh continued as AERO till April, 2013 when the petitioner replaced him in the said capacity. Besides the above Officer, one Satpal was working in the voter centre, AC-31, Vikas Puri, New Delhi as LDC and one Dolly Sharma was the head clerk who has since expired.
5. On July 17, 2013, a complaint was made by the then MLA against Satpal regarding his indulgence in activities prejudicial to the voter centre. Satpal was surrendered by the then ERO of AC-31, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, Manju Singh Kalshian.
6. On September 26, 2013 an intimation was received from the then SDM, Dwarka by District Election Officer, District West about a complaint through mobile message about the mutilated Election Photo Identity Cards (`EPICs', for short) found lying on the roadside in Sector-13 Dwarka. On receipt of the above report from SDM, Dwarka, an FIR was registered with the Dwarka (North) Police Station. It was his case that investigation was carried out in the matter, during which it was informed that the torn EPICs found in Sector-13, Dwarka were related to special summary revision held in 2012 when Manvinder Singh was posted as AERO. A comprehensive report was submitted to the then District Election Officer of respondent No.4, wherein Satpal was named as key official responsible for the aforesaid episode and it transpired into the suspension of Manvinder Singh.
7. On April 16, 2014, petitioner received a memorandum issued under the order and in the name of respondent No.2 for major penalty proceedings with Articles of Charge containing two charges against the petitioner. The charges against the petitioner were relating to the incident of mutilated EPICs found on the roadside in Dwarka on September 26, 2013 and 46 undistributed EPICs relating to summary revision of 2012 found at the voter centre, AC-31, Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
8. It was the case of the petitioner that the above charges relating to the period during which he
The Election Commission's disciplinary authority over a Deputy Commissioner ends post-election results, rendering any subsequent directives invalid.
The appellate authority must issue a reasoned order in disciplinary proceedings; failure to do so renders the order invalid.
The court affirmed the principle that judicial review of administrative actions in disciplinary processes is limited to procedural correctness, not evidential review, and mandated reconsideration of ....
Charge memo for major penalty must be approved by competent disciplinary authority; issuance by minor penalty authority without approval vitiates proceedings.
Point of Law : Service Law - Punishment of Compulsory Retirement - Illegal gratification - An order passed imposing a punishment on an employee consequent upon a disciplinary/departmental enquiry in ....
Disciplinary proceedings initiated by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority do not violate Article 311; the standard for punishment must align with proven misconduct.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.