W.P.(C.) No.215 /2009

Page 1 of 17

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P. (C.) No.215/2009

%

Date of Decision: 10.03.2011

Union of India & Anr.

…. Petitioners

Through Mr.M.M.Sudan, Advocate.

Versus

D.S.Manchanda

…. Respondent

Through

Ms.Meenu Mainee, Advocate.

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 petitioners, the Secretary, Ministry of Information and

Broadcasting & Anr., have challenged the order dated 10^th July, 2008

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi in OA No.1431 of 2006, titled as „D. S. Manchanda v. Union of

India & Ors.‟, allowing the respondent‟s application and setting aside

the order dated 30^th May, 2002 passed by the petitioners in pursuance

of a major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules,

1965 imposing a penalty in consultation with the UPSC of withholding

2011:DHC:1493-DB

W.P.(C.) No.215 /2009

Page 2 of 17

further increments till date of the respondent‟s retirement with a

permanent impact on his retiral benefits of pension and gratuity.

2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes between the parties are

that the respondent joined the petitioners on deputation from the Army

in the year 1985 as Superintending Engineer and he was absorbed in

the year 1990. The respondent was promoted as Chief Engineer in the

year 1995.

3. While working as a Chief Engineer, on 9^th July, 1996 he was

served with a memorandum of charge sheet alleging that he had

accepted the lesser frame size alternator without obtaining prior

approval of the competent authority. The charge sheet issued to the

respondent on 9^th July, 1996 was amended and a 3^rd charge was also

alleged against him on 28^th July, 1998.

4. The respondent denied the charges made against him and

demanded the supply of 77 documents, which according to him, were

vital for the defense of the respondent. The respondent alleged that

documents were not supplied to him. The Commissioner for

Departmental Enquiries was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, who gave

the enquiry report implicating the respondent.

2011:DHC:1493-DB

W.P.(C.) No.215 /2009

Page 3 of 17

5. On receipt of the copy of the enquiry report, the respondent

submitted a representation. According to the respondent, the pleas and

contentions raised by him were not considered appropriately by the

Disciplinary Authority who passed an order of punishment imposing the

penalty of withholding further increments which would have the effect

of denying him the last increment prior to his retirement and which

would have a permanent impact on his retiral benefits. The respondent

also contended that the evidence against him was not put to him in

compliance with Rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 though he had

not appeared as his witness nor had examined any witnesses.

6. The respondent submitted a revision petition against the order of

the Disciplinary Authority dated 30^th October, 2002 however, the

revision petition was also rejected by the order dated 22^nd February,

2005 which decision was communicated to the respondent on 11^th May,

2005.

7. Aggrieved by the punishment imposed upon the respondent, he

filed an Original Application being OA No.1431 of 2006 before the

Central

Administrative

Tribunal,

Principal

Bench,

New

Delhi,

contending inter-alia, that the enquiry against him is vitiated as the

relevant documents demanded by him were not given which included

the preliminary enquiry report submitted by Sh.V.B.Gupta, which was

relied on by the Disciplinary Authority. It was further contended that

201