The Single Judge's order in W.P.(C) 7701/2016, dismissing the original writ petition against an exonerated government official, was upheld. The court found no error in the lower court's determination that the investigation report required no fresh inquiry.
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed as it has no substance.
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.
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision : 06th August, 2019
DEVENDRA KUMAR GUPTA ..... Appellant Through: Appellant in person
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Girish Pandey for Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Adv. for R-2
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R
% 06.08.2019
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant who is original petitioner in W.P.(C) 7701/2016 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7th February, 2019.
2. Having heard the appellant in person and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the main grievance ventilated by this appellant in person (original petitioner) that while working as a Chief Engineer in the Department of Posts with the
Page 1 of 3
LPA 166/2019
respondent he had rejected one invalid tender in June, 2007. Thereafter respondent had issued a chargesheet against the appellant and after inquiry being conducted by the respondent, the appellant was exonerated of all charges framed against him.
3. Now the appellant submits that there were material alterations and tempering of the documents by Respondent No.4 in the investigation report submitted by the Vigilance Division which is annexed at Annexure P-2 to the memo of this appeal and therefore, a fresh investigations should be conducted to expose the nexus between the respondents.
4. We have also heard Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that tempering of the investigation report involves a lot of factual aspects of the matter. Even otherwise, the learned Single Judge has observed in the order dated 7th February, 2019 in W.P.(C) 7701/2016 that it has been explained in detail by the Respondent No. 2 that there was no tempering of the documents at all.
5. We have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. We are satisfied with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge and we found no error committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(C) 7701/2016 vide order dated 7th February, 2019.
Page 2 of 3
LPA 166/2019
6. Hence, there is no substance in this appeal and the same is therefore dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
AUGUST 06, 2019/ kr
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
Page 3 of 3
LPA 166/2019
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Letters Patent Appeal merits remittandorder of the Single Judge should be allowed given the appellant's allegations of document tampering.
Devendra Kumar Gupta
Union of India
C. Hari Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
