Full Text
JUDGMENT
(15) + W.P.(C) 2446/2015 SURESH SHARMA Petitioner Through Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Adv.
VERSUS
NTRO THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN & ORS Respondents Through Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for UOI. (16) + W.P.(C) 2466/2015 & CM Nos.4429-30/2015
VERSUS
(21) + W.P.(C) 2543/2015 & CM Nos.4559-61/2015
VERSUS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA 2015:DHC:11355-DB -< % ORDER 13.03.2015 C.M. AdpI. No.4409/2015 in W.P.(0 2446/2015 C.M. AdpI. No.4430/2015 in W.P.fO 2466/2015 C.M. AdpI. No.4560/2015 in W.P.rO 2543/2015 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. Applications stand disposed of. W.P.ta 2446/2015 & CM Nos.4407-08/2015 W.P.(a 2466/2015 & CM No.4429/2015 W.P.rCl 2543/2015 & CM Nos.4559/2015 & 4561/2015 Challenge in the present three writ petitions preferred by the petitioner is against the common order dated 18.02.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal disposing of the OAs preferred by the petitioner, the same being OA No.3037/2014, OA No.3061/2014 & OA No.3087/2014. The principal grievance raised by the petitioner in these three writ petitions is that the learned Tribunal has not properly perused and examined the original records produced by the respondents in support oftheir case that necessary approvals by the disciplinary authority were accorded at all the three stages envisaged under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Mr. Bhardwaj, counsel representing the petitioner submits that vide order dated 01.10.2014 this Court while disposing of the W.P.(C) No.6791/2014 preferred by the petitioner gave direction that at the stage of hearing the Tribunal shall consider the relevant record pertaining to the approval of the proposal to chargesheet the petitioner and inspect the page, or those pages which would be permitted in the Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Court further directed that the CAT shall record specific findings in this regard apart from findings in regard to the case. Contention raised by the petitioner is that learned Tribunal has not carefolly inspected all the record in terms of the direction given by the High Court vide order dated 1®^ October, 2014. Counsel also submits that he himselfhadinspected the records produced by the respondents and after perusal of the same the petitioner submitted a detailed note to highlight that necessary approvals at various stages were not seen to be accorded by the disciplinary authority as per Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Mr. Jetly, Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that in para 8 of the impugned order the learned Tribunal has held that they had perused the relevant files and after the examination of the files the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the disciplinaiy proceedings and issuance of chargesheet issued against the petitioner are based on prior approval of the competent authority in the matter, i.e., Hon'ble Prime Minister as Minister In-charge. For better appreciation, para 8 and relevant paras are reproduced as under "8. On 31.01.2015 the learned counsel for the applicant stated that he has already inspected the original records produced by the respondents in the light ofthe directions of the Tribunal. We have also perused these records, which are fde Nos. 920/45/c/6/2011-POL, 920/45/c/6/2011-2 & 920/45/c/6/2011-Vol-II. On 04.02.2015, when the matter was finally heard, the details in the aforenoted three files perused by us and inspected by the counselfor the applicant were noted asfollows "We have perused thefile No. 920/45/c/6/2011 POL relating to the disciplinary proceedings against Sh. Suresh Sharma, Editor Controller, NTRO. We find that inpage 13 ofthe notings ofthefile, the Hon 'ble Prime Minister has approved the proposal for initiation of major penalty proceedings and the required approvalfor draft charge-sheet.
2. We have also perused File No. 920/45/c/6/2011 Vol-2 in which the proposal by PMO dated 28.07.2012 for initiation of major penalty proceedings and the draft charge-sheet have been approved by the Hon 'ble Prime Minister.
3. On the same File No. 920/45/c/6/2011 Vol-II is the approval of the Hon'ble Prime Minister on 06.09.2012 for initiation of major penalty proceedings and the draft charge-sheet against Sh. Suresh Sharma.
4. The original files which was produced and inspected by the counsel for applicant before the court on the last date have been returned to the counsel for the respondents. Written submissions have beenfiled on behalfofSh. V.S.R. Krishna and Sh. D.S. Mahendru, counselfor the respondents. " In these petitions, the petitioner has raised a factual controversy as the petitioner has again reiterated its stand that the necessary approvals at the stages contemplated under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 were not granted by the disciplinary authority and in the absence of the same, all the three enquiry proceedings gets vitiated. The counsel has also insisted for perusal of the records by this Court but to which we are in total disagreement since the matter pertains to the realm offactual controversy. In these circumstances, we deem it proper to direct the Tribunal to again carry out the inspection of the relevant files which shall be produced by the respondents in terms of the order dated 1®^ October, 2014 already passed by this Court and after examination of the records and before giving their views the Tribunal shall also take into consideration the brief note submitted by the petitioner highlighting the fact that necessary approvals by the disciplinary authority at the relevant stages were not granted and it shall record specific findings in this regard apart from findings in regard to the case. Mr. Bhardwaj, Advocate, accordingly does not press the present petitions and seeks to file a review application for review of the said order. Giving said liberty to the petitioner and in terms of the aforesaid directions, the present petitions are disposed ofas not pressed.
MARCH 13, 2015 km KAILASH GAMBHIR, J fMEHTA, J