W.P.(C)/10232/2017 of ANIL KUMAR ANAND Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Order: November 20, 2017

W.P.(C) 10232/2017 & CMs 41735-37/2017

ANIL KUMAR ANAND

..... Petitioner

Through: In person

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak and Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Advocates for

respondent No.1

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mr.Sudhanshu Palo, Mr. H.K. Naik and Mr. Ajay Amritraj, Advocates for respondent No.4

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER(ORAL)

1.Petitioner, who appears in person, chooses to argue this petition himself and asserts that he is Vice-President in Unit Trust of India Assets Management Company Limited (respondent No.4)and was departmentally proceeded, while he was working as Chief Manager, Faridabad UTI Finance Centre.

2.The Inquiry Officer has indicted petitioner on the charges leveled against him on 18[th] August, 2016, which was challenged by petitioner in the earlier round of litigation. Vide order of 5[th] September, 2017 (Annexure P-2), petitioner’s challenge was repelled with observation that the Disciplinary Authority shall apply its mind on the pleas to be taken

by petitioner in his representation. Petitioner’s review of the order of 5[th]September, 2017 was also negated. Then, petitioner had filed Letters Patent Appeal, which was withdrawn by him and the Division Bench it its order of 1[st] November, 2017 (Annexure P-8 colly.) had observed that the Disciplinary Authority shall apply its mind on the representation purportedly filed by petitioner on 11[th] September, 2017 and pass speaking order thereon.

3.The impugned order of 30[th] October, 2017 (Annexure P-9 colly.)proposes penalty of dismissal from service and advises petitioner to submit his representation against the proposed penalty. The plea of petitioner is that his representation has not been decided and straightaway the penalty has been proposed and the time granted to him to file the representation was short one as the impugned order was conveyed to petitioner on 8[th] November, 2017 and it was clarified by petitioner to respondent No.5 that petitioner had gone to perform annual religious ceremony (shradh) of his late mother and while taking note of the aforesaid fact, respondent No.5 had extended the time till 26[th]November, 2017.

4.Petitioner submits that it would be futile to make representation against the proposed penalty because petitioner maintains that the Authority who had issued the charge-sheet was not competent and so was the Inquiry Officer, who held the Inquiry, as the persons who had issued the charge-sheet and held the Inquiry are junior to petitioner and are not permanent employees of respondent No.4. Petitioner also asserts

that he is laying challenge to the vires of Rules 3(h), 55(2) and 57 of the Unit Trust of India (Staff Rules), 1978 (Annexure P-1 colly.), as amended from time to time. In support of above submission, reliance is placed upon Supreme Court’s decisions in The Management of D.T.U. v. B.B.L. Hajelay and Another AIR 1972 SC 2452 and Mathura Prasad v. Union of India and Others (2007) 1 SCC 437.

5.Learned counsel for contesting respondent No.4 submits that challenge to the competence of the authorities who had issued the charge-sheet and held the Inquiry has been already repelled in the first round of litigation and so, petitioner is not justified in refusing to make representation against the proposed penalty. In this regard, attention of this Court is drawn by learned counsel for contesting respondent No.4 to paragraphs No. 13 to 15 of the order of 5[th] September, 2017 (Annexure P-2). He further submits that the aforesaid order has attained finality as the appeal against it has already been dismissed.

6.Learned counsel for contesting respondent No.4 further submits that petitioner’s Representation of 11[th] September, 2017 has been considered in the impugned order. However, during the course of hearing, it was asserted by petitioner that he had reserved his right to make full-fledged Representation against proposed penalty.

7.After having considered the submissions advanced by both the sides and on perusal of impugned order, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that petitioner’s plea of charge-sheet not being issued by competent authority and of Inquiry Officer being

incompetent to hold the inquiry, already stands negated in the first round of litigation. It is so evident from the Writ Court’s order of 5[th]September, 2017 (Annexure P-2), which has attained finality. The question which falls for consideration is whether petitioner’s Representation has been adequately dealt with in impugned order or not.

8.Upon bare perusal of impugned order, I find that it is not only reasoned one but it effectively deals with the stand taken by petitioner. Hence, impugned order (Annexure P-9 colly.) is not being interfered with. However, petitioner’s Representation to the proposed penalty is required to be decided strictly on merits and in accordance with the applicable Rules and Regulations. To enable respondent to do so, petitioner is granted four weeks’ time to make Representation against the proposed penalty. If it is so done, then respondent shall decide petitioner’s Representation within eight weeks of receiving it, by passing speaking order, uninfluenced by Courts’ orders and in accordance with the applicable Rules and Regulations. The fate of Representation be made known to petitioner within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies, as available in law.

9.With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are disposed of.

Dasti.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

NOVEMBER 20, 2017 s W.P.(C) 10232/2017