WP (C) No. 9468/2007 nsk

Page 1 of 15

Reportable

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

WP (C) No. 9468 of 2007

Reserved on : May 16, 2008

%

Pronounced on : July 04, 2008

Union of India

. . . Petitioner

through :

Mr. R.V. Sinha with

Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates

VERSUS

L.K. Puri & Anr.

. . . Respondents

through :

Mr. Vivek Chib, Advocate

for the respondent No.1.

Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate

for the respondent No.2.

CORAM :-

THE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

THE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed

to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1.

Union of India is not satisfied with the outcome of the OA filed by

the respondent No.1, Mr. L.K. Puri, before the Central Administrative

Tribunal inasmuch as the said OA of the respondent No.1 has been

allowed by the Tribunal vide its impugned judgment dated

24.1.2007 and the decision of the Government imposing the penalty

of reduction of pay by two stages vide orders dated 24.6.2005 has

been set aside. The petitioner maintains that such a decision was

2008:DHC:1908-DB

WP (C) No. 9468/2007 nsk

Page 2 of 15

properly taken without any infirmity therein and the Tribunal should

not have set aside the same.

2.

A brief factual matrix transpires that the respondent No.1 was served

with charge memo dated 29.11.2002 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA)

Rules, 1965 levelling the charge relating to handling the matter of

procurement of 1000 computers for MPCM project for the year

2000-01 in his capacity as Deputy Director General (Tech.) and Sr.

Deputy Director General (CPT). It was alleged that he failed to

maintain absolute integrity and acted against public interest, causing

undue favour to M/s. Compaq Computers, inasmuch as after

finalization of the Notice Inviting Tender, he effected changes in it in

the specifications to suit the requirement of M/s. Compaq Computers

and is initiation of proposal dated 15.3.2001 led to a decision on

16.3.2001, whereby without proper examination of various options

in terms of cost effectiveness etc. it had been proposed to purchase

computers instead of taking those computers on lease, from which

act M/s. Compaq Computers benefited unjustifiably.

3.

The Inquiry Officer, after holding the inquiry, returned his findings

establishing Articles (i) and (iv) of the charges as proved and holding

that Article of charge No. (ii) was not proved and Article (iii) was

partly proved. The findings of the Inquiry Officer were referred to

the Central Vigilance Commission (for short, „CVC‟) for their second

stage advice. CVC vide its ID Note dated 4.2.2004 advised

imposition of suitable major penalty on the respondent No.1. The

2008:DHC:1908-DB

WP (C) No. 9468/2007 nsk

Page 3 of 15

said Inquiry Report, along with CVC‟s second stage advice, was

supplied to the respondent No.1 for making representation, if any.

The respondent No.1 wrote back letter dated 8.3.2004 seeking

extension of time by 15 days to submit the reply. He also demanded

copy of the views of the department conveyed to CVC while seeking

second stage advice. Though the respondent No.1 was allowed

further time, the department refused to supply copy of its comments

sent to CVC on the ground that there was no provision in the Rules

for this purpose. The respondent No.1 accordingly submitted his

representation. Thereafter, order dated 24.6.2005 was passed by

the President of India imposing the penalty of reduction in pay by

two stages, i.e. from Rs.24,500/- to Rs.23,450/- in the time scale of

pay of Rs.22400-525-24500 with immediate effect with further

direction that he would not earn any increment in his pay till his

retirement which was due on 31.10.2005.

4.

Challenging that order, the respondent filed the aforesaid OA.

Primary ground to challenge the order wa