$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 17.02.2022

+

W.P.(C) 6928/2020 and CM No.23758/2020 (stay)

DR. LOKESH SHARMA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Sangita Rai, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Siddharth Khatana, Senior

Panel Counsel for R-1.

Mr. Yashpal Singh, Advocate for

R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

J U D G E M E N T

1.

Present writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner seeking

quashing of Memorandum dated 28.10.2019 as well as order dated

19.12.2019, whereby sanction to initiate departmental proceedings

against the Petitioner was accorded by Chairman, Delhi Library Board

(hereinafter referred to as ‘DLB’). Challenge is also laid to Charge

Memorandum

dated

19.12.2019

and

consequential

orders

and

proceedings including order dated 07.08.2020, whereby Inquiring

Authority was appointed by DLB, to inquire into the charges framed

against the Petitioner.

2.

The grievance raised by the Petitioner is primarily structured on the

applicability of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter, referred to as

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000641

‘CCA Rules’) and the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to

as ‘Conduct Rules’) as well as the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Pension Rules’), to a contractual appointment,

as in the present case.

3.

Shorn of unnecessary details, facts relevant to the dispute between

the parties to the lis are that Delhi Public Library/Respondent No.2 herein

invited applications for the post of Director General in Pay Band-4 with

Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/-, on deputation (including short term contract)/

contract basis, through an advertisement published in the Employment

News dated 10-16^th December, 2016. Petitioner applied for appointment

to the said post and was recommended by the Selection Committee.

Respondent No.2 sought his vigilance clearance from the University of

Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘University’), which was received vide

letter dated 17.05.2017. Letter offering appointment was issued on

13.10.2017, which was accepted by the Petitioner on 16.10.2017 and he

joined Respondent No.2.

4.

Relevant would be at this stage to note that Petitioner, prior to his

applying for the aforesaid post, was working as Deputy Librarian with the

University, wherefrom he superannuated on 31.08.2016.

5.

As per the offer of appointment, appointment of the Petitioner with

Respondent No.2 was on contract, for a period of three years from the

date of assumption of charge of the post or until further orders, whichever

was earlier. Pay and allowances were to be fixed as per Rules and

Regulations of the Government of India. Petitioner’s performance was

subject to review from time to time and the appointment was liable to be

terminated on one month’s notice on either side, without assigning any

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000641

reason. Respondent No.2, however, reserved the right to terminate the

services before expiration of the stipulated period of notice by making

payment of a sum equivalent to the contractual amount, in lieu of notice

period. It was specified in the offer of appointment that as a Director

General, Petitioner shall be the Chief Executive of the Delhi Public

Library System and the Member Secretary of DLB. The responsibilities

that the Petitioner was required to shoulder were stipulated in the offer

letter, which list was inclusive and not exhaustive.

6.

Appointment of the Petitioner was with the approval of

Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). Petitioner was declared

as Head of the Department, the highest administrative position in

Respondent No.2 and by the order of appointment itself, he was delegated

various Financial and Administra