W.P.(C) 1760/2008

Page 1 of 22

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) No.1760/2008

%

Date of Decision: 10.03.2011

Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of

Information and Broadcasting & Anr.

…. Petitioners

Through Mr.M.M.Sudan, Advocate

Versus

Tarlok Singh

…. Respondent

Through Ms. Meenu Maini, 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 Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of

Information and Broadcasting and Anr. have challenged the order dated

12^th March, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Principal Bench in O.A No.2759/2005 titled as „Sh.Tarlok Singh v.

Union of India and Ors‟ allowing the original application of the

respondent and setting aside the order dated 28^th August, 2002 of

major punishment imposed upon the respondent and holding that

2011:DHC:1495-DB

W.P.(C) 1760/2008

Page 2 of 22

consequent to setting aside of major punishment the respondent shall

be entitled for all consequential benefits.

2. The brief facts to comprehend the disputes between the parties

are that the respondent was appointed as JE on 9^th June, 1989 and

was subsequently promoted as AE (Electrical). On 9^th July, 1996 a

memorandum of chargesheet was served on the respondent alleging

that he had accepted an alternator of lesser frame size and had falsely

recommended passing of the first running account bill of M/s.Escorts

Ltd. Allegations were also made that he did not initiate action for testing

the alternator. The articles of charges made against the respondent

were denied by him. An enquiry officer, Sh. Onkarmal Kedia,

Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries, CVC was appointed to

enquire into the charges framed against the respondent. Though an

enquiry was conducted in which the respondent did not examine

himself as witness, however, in compliance with Rule 14(18) of CCS

(CCA) Rules, 1965 the evidence against the respondent was not put to

him. The allegation was also made by the respondent that the enquiry

officers conducted the enquiry proceedings in violation of the principles

of natural justice.

3. The enquiry officer gave a report dated 26^th May, 1998 and a copy

of the enquiry report was also given to the respondent. The respondent

2011:DHC:1495-DB

W.P.(C) 1760/2008

Page 3 of 22

submitted a representation dated 6^th

May, 1999 categorically

contending that the enquiry was not conducted in compliance with the

principles of natural justice; that the enquiry officer has not put the

evidence which was against the respondent in compliance with Rule

14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and also that the disciplinary

authority, without properly considering the representation and without

dealing with the pleas and contentions raised by the respondent

imposed a penalty of withholding of two increments for a period of two

years with cumulative effect.

4. The respondent also came to know that the UPSC was consulted

regarding the punishment to be imposed, however, copy of the opinion

of UPSC was not given to the respondent, which was mandatory. The

respondent, therefore, filed an appeal on 17^th March, 2003 which was

converted into a revision petition, however, the reviewing authority

rejected the same by order dated 30^th November, 2005. Aggrieved by the

order, the respondent filed an original application being O.A

No.2759/2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench on the grounds inter-alia that the enquiry officer did not put the

evidence adduced against him during the enquiry in compliance of Rule

14 sub Rule 18 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which contemplates that the

enquiry authority, after Government servant closes his case, and if the

employee has not e