WP(C) No.6961/2010 Page 1 of 18

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

WP(C) No.6961/2010

%

Date of Decision: 11.01.2011

India Trade Promotion Organisation & Anr.

…. Petitioners

Through Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate

Versus

P.K. Jindal & Anr.

…. Respondents

Through Mr. S. Janani, Advocate for respondent

No. 1

Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC & Mr. Abhishek

Goyal, Advocate for respondent No. 2

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1.

Whether reporters of Local papers may be

allowed to see the judgment?

YES

2.

To be referred to the reporter or not?

NO

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in

the Digest?

NO

ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 2^nd February, 2010

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in TA

No. 511/2009 titled as P.K. Jindal Vs. Union of India & Ors. quashing

the order dated 8/9^th June, 2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority

imposing penalty of withholding three increments of pay with

2011:DHC:149-DB

WP(C) No.6961/2010 Page 2 of 18

cumulative effect and granting opportunity to the petitioner to proceed

against the respondent after allowing him the assistance of a defence

assistant from the stage when he was denied the services of the defence

assistant and directing the petitioner to complete the inquiry within

three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of order dated 2^nd

February, 2010 as 15 years had already expired.

2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies between the parties

are that the respondent was appointed as Assistant Manager (re-

designated as Dy. Manager) with the petitioner. After seven years of

service, he was appointed as Dy. Manager (re-designated as Manager)

and after four years of service as Manager, he was promoted to the post

of Joint Manger (re-designated as Sr. Manager) in Finance and

Accounts Division.

3. The respondent asserted that on 29^th December, 1994, the then

Assistant Manager (Finance) Sh. A.K. Sahani had taken earned leave for

16 days, w.e.f. 29th December 1994 to 13th January 1995, which was

sanctioned by the respondent as a Joint Manager (re-designated as Sr.

Manager). He had asked for a substitute during the leave period of Mr.

Sahani, however, no substitute was provided.

2011:DHC:149-DB

WP(C) No.6961/2010 Page 3 of 18

4. During the period from 3^rd January, 1995 to 13^th January, 1995

seven bills amounting to Rs. 1.72 lacs for payment relating to

advertisement were forwarded by Publicity Division to Finance Division

along with Bill Forwarding Proforma, Sanction Order Proforma duly

certified by authorized officer of Publicity Division including the rates of

advertisements which were taken by the Publicity Division and

consequent thereto payment was sanctioned by the respondent.

5. On account of a publicity scam in the organization, petitioner was

issued a memo dated 8^th May, 1998 and he was asked to explain the

alleged negligence pointed out in the confidential note, which was

supported by the DGM Sh. K.S. Dabas. A detailed reply was given by

the respondent on 20^th May, 1998. The promotion of the respondent

was deferred by the DPC which met on 12^th May, 1998 on account of

memo dated 8^th May, 1998. According to the respondent, even Sealed

Cover procedure in accordance with ITPO Service Rules and

Government Orders was not followed in his case and he was victimized

though he had not committed any wrong.

6. The respondent had made a representation dated 26^th November,

1998, however, the representation was not considered and replied by

the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent was given a memo dated 4^th

2011:DHC