IMPORTANT POINT
In case of a service dispute relating to a Central Government employee, a writ petition is not maintainable at the first instance before the High Court, and the employees should approach the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is arising out of order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.M. No. 47812/2023 in W.P.(C.) No. 10923/2023.

2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the respondents No.1 to 6 are employees of Central Public Works Department (CPWD)/Public Works Department (PWD) serving the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD). They came up before this Court being aggrieved by the show-cause notices dated 19.06.2013 issued by the Directorate of Vigilance seeking explanation from them as to why disciplinary action under the relevant rules/laws/manuals/circulars/CVC guidelines etc., be not initiated against them.

3. The appellants before this Court have stated that they have taken a preliminary objection in the matter stating that a writ petition is not at all maintainable as the respondents No.1 to 6 are Central Government employees, and for the challenge in respect of disciplinary action, they have to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It has been stated on affidavit that the objection was taken on the first date of hearing, i.e. 17.08.2023.

4. In the LPA, it has been stated that the matter was listed on 17.08.2023 and a Special Counsel was appointed by the GNCTD and the Special Secretary (Vigilance) to defend the GNCTD through Principal Secretary (Vigilance) and the Special Secretary (Vigilance). However, Standing Counsel for the GNCTD appeared in the matter and stated that the government will not take any coercive steps till the next date of hearing.

5. The facts further reveal that thereafter an application was preferred in the matter, i.e. C.M. No. 47812/2023 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and it was stated that in spite of the undertaking given by the appellants, they are proceeding ahead with the matter. In those circumstances of the matter, learned Standing Counsel for the GNCTD submitted that no coercive steps have been taken against the respondents. In light of the undertaking given by the learned Standing Counsel (on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 in the writ petition), the learned Single Judge has finally held that no coercive steps shall be taken by any authority against the petitioners till the next date of hearing and the matter has been listed on 12.10.2023.

6. Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned senior counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued before this Court that the counsels - who have appeared in the matter and who have stated that no coercive action will be taken in the matter against the officers, were not authorized to make such a statement and he has drawn the attention of this Court toward Office Memorandum dated 18.04.2023, which reads as under:

"F.No.5(669)/LJ&LA/Lit/Advocate Matter/2023/4337-4386 Dated 18/4/2023

Office Memorandum

It has been noticed that in some cases the Government Counsel(s) empanelled by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi have filed affidavits without obtaining written instructions from the concerned Departments. It has also been brought to the notice that in certain cases the Government Counsel(s) have made written and verbal submissions at variance with stand of the concerned Departments. Such instances have cause embarrassment to Government Departments and have been viewed seriously.

2. All Standing Counsel(s)/Additional Standing Counsel(s) and empanelled Counsel(s) are therefore directed to ensure that the written and verbal submissions made by them shall have to be strictly in consonance with the written instructions given to them with the approval of administrative Secretary of the concerned Department.

3. These instructions are also being brought to the notice of all administrative Secretaries/HoDs for ensuring compliance.

Sd/-

(Bharat Parashar)

Principal Secretary (Law, Justice & LA)"

7. He has vehemently argued before this Court that in light of the Office