Petitioner challenged delay in disciplinary enquiries and constitutional validity of CCS rules. Court noted alternate remedy at CAT and exceptional nature of allegations, directing expeditious disposal of enquiries.
Directions to complete enquiries within four months; Writ Petitions disposed keeping merits open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
5.wp.6314.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6314 OF 2014 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7184 OF 2014
Pankaj R. Patel
..Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and Ors
..Respondents
Mr. Bhavesh Parmar i/b Mr. Devmani J. Shukla, Vijay Prakash Yadav,for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Deshmukh, for Respondent Nos.2 and 4.
Mr. R. B. Raghuwanshi a/w Ms.Rutuja Ambekar,for Respondent No.1 Union of India.
CORAM :- NARESH H. PATIL & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- SEPTEMBER 29, 2014.
P. C.:
Heard. The Petitioner preferred two Petitions. In Writ Petition
No.7184 of 2014, the Petitioner prays for a declaration that Part V and
Part VI of the CCS (CCA) Rules be declared as 'ultra-vires' to the Constitution of India and the provisions of Part XIV of the Constitution of
India to the limited extent of providing for prosecution and punishment.
Aswale 1/6
5.wp.6314.14
In second Petition bearing No.6314 of 2014, the Petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the charge sheets dated 30th April, 2013 and 27th May, 2013 declaring the same as bad in law.
2 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the show cause notice issued in the first case on 20th April 2013 is contrary to the established principles of service juris prudence as authority concerned expressed opinion as to why disciplinary proceedings for major penalty should not be initiated against him. This according to the learned counsel is predetermination of the allegations made against the Petitioner before concluding the enquiry. It is submitted that in accordance with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) circular, such enquiries are to be completed within a span of six months duration but in the present case the Petitioner is facing enquiry proceedings since last more than two years. It is further submitted that second charge-sheet was issued on 27th May, 2013 based on Memorandum/charge-sheet dated 27th May, 2013. This Memorandum/charge-sheet was issued without issuing any show-cause notice. The learned counsel submits that the move to delay the departmental proceedings is to deprive the Petitioner from promotional benefits. The learned counsel submitted that one of the employees was
Aswale 2/6
promoted though he faced criminal proceedings.
3 The learned counsel appearing for Daman Administration Respondent No. 2 submitted that in the proceedings of first charge sheet, Enquiry Officer was appointed on 24th September, 2013. Four hearings have taken place. Thereafter, enquiry officer got transferred and a new Enquiry Officer has been appointed on 10th June 2014. Thereafter, the said officer was promoted as Collector. The name of the third Enquiry Officer has already been processed and the administrator is awaiting for further orders in this regard. In respect of the second charge sheet, the learned counsel, on instructions, submits that the new administrator has taken over on 18th August, 2014. A new Enquiry Officer is being appointed now. The learned counsel, on instructions, submits that both the enquiries would be completed expeditiously. The delay occurs due to various reasons including shortage of officers, increase of work load, transfer, promotion, etc. The learned counsel had raised objection that the Petitioner ought to have approached CAT. Without exhausting alternate efficacious remedy, the Petitioner had approached this Court under writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel referred to a decision in the case of Union of India and Anr v/s Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SSC page 28. The relevant paragraph nos.14,15
Aswale 3/6
5.wp.6314.14
and 16 reads thus:-
15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such a discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet.
16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is
Aswale 4/6
5.wp.6314.14
found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."
4 The learned counsel appearing for Union of India submitted that the enquiry initiated against the Petitioner would be expeditiously conducted. The learned counsel submitted that due to the reasons stated by the counsel appearing for Daman Administration the enquiry could not be completed in time but that shall not be a ground to interfere at this stage under writ jurisdiction.
5 We have perused the record placed before us, the judgment cited (supra) and considered the submissions advanced in respect of the contentions raised regarding the enquiry and issuance of charge sheet. The Petitioner had an alternate efficacious remedy in approaching the CAT but according to the Petitioner as the issue of certain constitutional provisions are raised, the Petitioner had approached this Court in its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The CVC circular specifies six months duration for completion of such enquiries but according to the Respondent Administration, due to the factors beyond their control, the enquiry could not be completed within the stipulated time frame. The Respondent Administration, now, assures that the enquiries in both the
Aswale 5/6
5.wp.6314.14
charge sheets would be completed expeditiously. Considering the nature of allegations as disclosed from the show-cause notice, we are of the view that there shall not be impediment in completing the enquiries expeditiously.
6 We direct the Respondent Administration to take appropriate steps to complete this enquiry in respect of both charge sheets within four months on its own merits. The Petitioner shall co-operate with the Enquiry Officer. The issue in respect of Petitioner's promotion could be raised before appropriate forum and at an appropriate stage. Considering the view expressed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment and the facts of this case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Keeping all issues on merits open, we dispose of Writ Petition No.6314 of 2014. In view of the disposal of the said Writ Petition, the Writ Petition No.7184 of 2014 is also disposed of, keeping all issues on merits open.
( B. P. COLABAWALLA, J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
Aswale 6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the issuance of a show-cause notice or charge-sheet under writ jurisdiction.
Whether the delay in completing departmental enquiries justifies judicial intervention.
Whether the petitioner can claim promotional benefits pending disciplinary proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India and Anr v/s Kunisetty SatyanarayanaDistinguished¶23
Union of India and Anr v/s Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SSC page 28
Pankaj R. Patel
Union of India and Ors
Naresh H. Patil
B. P. Colabawalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
