IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: November 20, 2023

+

W.P.(C) 7060/2016, CM APPL. 29049/2016

DR. ABHAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sanjeev Ralli, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Shubham Yadav, Mr. Ravi Kant

Yadav and Mr. Chetanya Baweja,

Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

..... Respondents

Through:

Mrs. Bharathi Raju, Sr. Panel Counsel

for UOI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

J U D G M E N T

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

1.

This petition has been filed impugning the order of the

respondents dated December 11, 2012 terminating the services of the

petitioner and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Principal Bench, New Delhi („Tribunal‟, hereinafter) dated August 10,

2015 affirming the termination.

2.

At the outset, we may briefly narrate the facts of the case, as set

out in the petition. The petitioner on being selected by Public

Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH

KUMAR YADAV

Signing Date:21.11.2023

11:08:49

Signature Not Verified

Enterprises Selection Board and upon approval from Appointments

Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) was appointed as the Chairman and

Managing Director (CMD) of National Aluminium Company Limited

(NALCO) w.e.f. October 1, 2009. As per the terms of appointment, the

petitioner was appointed for a period of five years or till the age of

superannuation or until further orders, whichever was earlier. Further,

the terms of appointment stated that his services could be terminated by

either side by giving three (3) months' notice or payment of salary in

lieu thereof. Further the terms of appointment stipulated review of

performance after completion of one year of service. The NALCO

Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1984 („CDA Rules‟,

hereinafter) were made applicable to the services of the petitioner and

the petitioner was eligible for superannuation benefits/benefits as per

the Office Memorandum dated November 26, 2008 and February 4,

2009. Upon joining as CMD, NALCO, the service benefits the

petitioner had earned with his previous employer- Cement Corporation

of India Ltd. (CCI), including an earned leave of ₹6,81,480/- and

gratuity of ₹2,24,130/- were transferred to NALCO on a requisition

made by NALCO in that regard.

3.

The petitioner successfully completed first year of his service

and as per the terms of appointment, the administrative Ministry

assessed the performance of petitioner as “outstanding” and cleared

him for continuing in service for the remaining tenure/period. On the

basis of clearance proposal by the Ministry, the Public Enterprises

Selection Board recommended confirmation of services of the

petitioner till his superannuation i.e., till January 31, 2014.

Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH

KUMAR YADAV

Signing Date:21.11.2023

11:08:49

Signature Not Verified

4.

In the meanwhile, on February 25, 2011 the petitioner was

implicated in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 („PC

Act‟, hereinafter) pursuant to which the respondents placed the

petitioner under suspension with effect from February 26, 2011. The

stand of the petitioner is that as the case itself was false and ill

motivated, the subsequent suspension is faulty. The respondent initiated

an internal assessment to hold disciplinary proceedings against the

petitioner, with advice solicited and received even from the Central

Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vide letter dated March 21, 2012. The

respondent with the approval of the Minister of State (Independent

Charge), Mines, who happened to be the disciplinary authority of the

petitioner, as per the powers delegated to him by the President of India

under the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961,

invoked the provisions of Rule 33 of CDA Rules vide note dated April

27, 2012, sought to be placed before the ACC, which provides special

procedure such as, in the eventuality it is impracticable to hold a re