Dismissed

C.M. Chandolia v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC6 Dec 2016W.P.(C)/11495/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment clarifies that departmental proceedings initiated on the Central Vigilance Commission's recommendation are not illegal. The court held there is no statutory bar preventing the department from seeking such advice. Given limited judicial review scope, the charge sheet could not be quashed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; charge sheet not quashed.

C.M. Chandolia Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11495/2016

¶4

C.M. CHANDOLIA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Pramod Kharwar and Mr. Amit Attri, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Ms. Biji Rajesh and Ms. Eshita Baruah, Advocates. Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocate for the CVC.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 06.12.2016

¶10

The contention of the petitioner is that the departmental proceedings have been initiated on the recommendation or advice of the Central Vigilance Commission. This, it is asserted, is illegal. The Department had not accepted the recommendation of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and only after the advice by the Central Vigilance Commission that the charge sheet dated 6/9.5.2016 was issued.

¶11

We have considered the said contention, but do not find any merit in the same. The petitioner is unable to show that the disciplinary authority or department could not have sought advice from the Central Vigilance Commission. There is nothing in the

¶12

statute or the procedure, as established, which bars the department from seeking advice from the Central Vigilance Commission. Internal notings are not conclusive and final. Before the final decision is communicated, the matter or issue can be examined. Opinions and views of others can be ascertained. This ensures objectivity. Upon consideration of several facets, the decision to initiate departmental proceedings was taken by the competent authority and charge sheet was issued. Given the limited scope of judicial review, at this stage, the charge sheet cannot be quashed and set aside for the contention raised.

¶13

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

We clarify that we have deliberately not examined the merits of the charge sheet, for it may cause prejudice to the parties. We also clarify that dismissal of the writ petition would not be construed as observation on merits of the charge.

¶15

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶16

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

¶17

DECEMBER 06, 2016 NA

C.M. Chandolia v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.M. Chandolia v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiran Kumar Soin Vs UOI and Ors.

Kamal Chauhan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jai Bhagwan Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rahul Singh Bhadoria & Ors. Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr.

Vishal Hira Merchant Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

UOI & Anr. Vs Daya Shankar

Vyanjana Vs the Chairman, C.B.S.E. & Anr.

Aditya Srivastav Vs Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr.

Kamal Chauhan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Balraj Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Neeraj Khatri Vs Union of India

Union Public Service Commission Vs Patil Bhushan Manohar & Ors.

Mukund L Abhyankar Vs Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare and Ors.

Sadbhawna Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs Arvind Kumar Sharma