R. Vasudevan v. Union of India & Anr.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who was appointed as a member of the Company Law Board. Petitioner was suspended from services on account of various misdemeanors which are stated in detail in the chargesheet including of possessing of cash and having assets beyond the known sources of income. Departmental proceedings were going on against the petitioner. I may note that the petitioner has retired on his ordinary date of superannuation i.e 15.3.2013. 2013:DHC:2036

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks reliefs of quashing of certain interim and procedural orders dated 18.3.2013 and 12.4.2013 passed by the Enquiry Officer.

3. The effect of the orders which have been challenged is that the right of the petitioner to lead further evidence is closed and petitioner has not been granted the documents as asked for by him.

4. Before I proceed to decide the writ petition, I may note that the orders which are passed in the course of enquiry proceedings are ordinarily not interfered by the Courts, inasmuch as, otherwise enquiry proceedings can from time to time be sought to be interfered with and thereby causing unnecessary delay in the disposal of the same. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has not to be exercised as if this Court was exercising power of superintendence of lower court/ tribunals under Article 227 of the Constitution. Issue of a chargesheeted official not being allowed to lead evidence of witnesses or not being given documents, are all the aspects which will be considered by the Disciplinary Authority before whom the report of the Enquiry Officer will be placed. Petitioner at that stage will have complete right to challenge the report of the Enquiry Officer allegedly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice including of the petitioner’s evidence being illegally closed or the petitioner not being supplied with the documents. If Courts start entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, although the Disciplinary Authority has yet not passed the order, then in such circumstances, there is all likelihood of enquiry proceedings being scuttled and deliberately delayed.

5. Two main grounds were urged before me. The first was the claim of the petitioner to documents which he asked for and the same was denied to him. The second ground is the evidence of the petitioner being closed and the petitioner not being allowed to examine two witnesses namely Sh. Manoj Kumar Banthia and Sh. Ankur Chawla. It may be noted that on a query put to the counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that petitioner himself does not want to step into the witness box and he is only asking for deposition of Sh.Manoj Kumar Banthia and Sh. Ankur Chawla.

6. So far as the first ground of the petitioner having not been supplied the documents, I asked the counsel for the petitioner to show me the ground pleaded in the writ petition as to which are the specific documents which the petitioner is claiming and which were not supplied to him, and how the petitioner has been prejudiced because of the same, however it is stated before me that no such ground is raised which specifies that what are the documents in question which are prayed to be given to the petitioner.

7. Independent of the aspect of lack of pleadings, a reading of the pleadings/proceedings before the Enquiry Officer which have come on record shows that really what the petitioner claims are those documents which pertain to proceedings in the criminal court including of orders therein as also depositions of witnesses in the criminal proceedings. In my opinion, the challenge which is laid by the petitioner in this writ petition to the orders which deny him the documents is misconceived for the reason that the departmental proceedings are independent proceedings wherein the charges against the petitioner will be proved independently of the documents before the criminal court and also the finding of the criminal court. Both the sides including the petitioner have to prove their cases/defence independent of the documents which are relied upon in the criminal proceedings and any orders which may be passed in the criminal proceedings. I am unable to understand as to how the petitioner can claim documents which are the proceedings before the criminal court as also the deposition which are made in the criminal court for the criminal court to arrive at a finding with respect to the case which is being tried before the criminal court.

8. In any case, from the record of the writ petition, it is clear that the Enquiry Officer has passed a detailed order on 24.1.2013 giving reasons for declining the request of the petitioner for the documents. Therefore, effectively, this writ petition challenges an interim order dated 24.1.2013 for non supply of documents and against which this Court would not like to interfere with in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, departmental proceedings are still going on and Disciplinary Authority has yet to pass the order and the petitioner will have complete liberty in the departmental proceedings and thereafter to contend the effect of non grant of the documents which the petitioner claims should be given.

9. So far as the second aspect of the right of the petitioner to lead evidence of two witnesses namely Sh.Manoj Kumar Banthia and Sh. Ankur Chawla being closed, counsel for the petitioner places great emphasis on the orders passed by the Enquiry Officer dated 4.3.2013, 5.3.2013 and 18.3.2013 alongwith the application filed by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer on 28.3.2013. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 18.3.2013 wrongly records the presence of the petitioner and which aspect is admitted by the Enquiry Officer himself in the order dated 12.4.2013. It is also argued that by the order dated 5.3.2013, it was stated that the next date of hearing will be intimated in due course, and therefore, the petitioner was at complete liberty thereafter to lead on the date to be fixed for the evidence being the depositions of Sh. Manoj Kumar Banthia and Sh. Ankur Chalwa, however, the Enquiry Officer illegally closed the hearing in the case on 18.3.2013 by wrongly recording the presence of the chargesheeted official. Stress is laid on the fact that if the petitioner was not present on a date not fixed, the right of the petitioner to lead evidence could not be closed.

10. In my opinion, this argument which is urged on behalf of the petitioner on the first blush seemed to have substance, however really, the same is misconceived for the reasons hereinafter.

11. The issue is with respect to depositions of two witnesses namely Sh. Manoj Kumar Banthia and Sh.Ankur Chawla. Before I say anything on this aspect I must note that the proceedings in question are departmental proceedings and not civil court proceedings or criminal court proceedings. In departmental proceedings, there is no provision of summoning the witnesses through court and if a person wants to lead evidence in support of his case, it is for that person to bring his witnesses who have to depose in his favour. Departmental proceedings are not technically legal proceedings either of the civil court or of the criminal court. Principles of natural justice have no doubt to be followed but such principles of natural justice are not hidebound or inflexible rules, the object being to ensure that complete liberty is given to a person to put his case before the Enquiry Officer.

12. In view of the aforesaid, the issue is firstly seen so far the deposition required of Mr. Manoj Kumar Banthia. It is not disputed that this person himself is an accused in the same criminal proceedings in which the petitioner is an accused. The orders of the Enquiry Officer dated 4.3.2013, 5.3.2013 and 18.3.2013 show that Mr. Banthia was unwilling to depose because it would affect the criminal case against him. The orders of the Enquiry Officer also show that in spite of opportunities Sh. Manoj Kumar Banthia hence did not appear in the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer closed the proceedings on 18.3.2013. Though the presence of the petitioner is wrongly recorded and in fact next date of hearing was to be intimated in due course as per the order dated 5.3.2013, however, in my opinion, that cannot in any manner mean that the order dated 18.3.2013 is to be faulted with because if the petitioner had only to examine Sh. Manoj Kumar Banthia and Sh. Ankur Chalwa, who did not appear in spite of repeated opportunities, then, there was no duty upon the Enquiry Officer to continue the proceedings so far as Manoj Kumar Banthia is concerned because there were clear indications that he would not like to depose as that would prejudice his case in the criminal case.

13. So far as Sh. Ankur Chalwa is concerned, I during the course of hearing put it to the counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner is ready and willing to confine the opportunity sought by him to record evidence limited to the statement of Mr. Ankur Chawla, however, Mr.Amrinder Saran, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on instructions said that petitioner wants to pursue the petition and not confine the petition to an opportunity for giving the petitioner to lead the evidence only of Sh. Ankur Chalwa. I had specifically put this query to counsel for the petitioner so as to test the bonafides of the petitioner as to whether really the petitioner is prejudiced and the petitioner only wants to lead the evidence of Sh. Ankur Chawla, but the stand of the petitioner makes it clear that the petitioner is wanting to make a game out of judicial proceedings.

14. I have already dealt with the aspect of the deposition of Sh.Manoj Kumar Banthia, and now if we take the case of Sh. Ankur Chawla, I find that nowhere in the orders passed by the Enquiry Officer dated 4.3.2013 and 5.3.2013 there is any mention at all that the petitioner has to lead the evidence of Sh. Ankur Chalwa in support of his case. In the orders reference is only made to the deposition of Sh. Manoj Kumar Banthia. I may at the risk of repetition state that counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has stated that the petitioner himself does not want to step into the witness box and the issue is only with respect to the evidence of Sh. Ankur Chawla. Therefore, in view of the fact that there is no challenge to the correctness of the record of the orders dated 4.3.2013, 5.3.2013 and which orders do not show that the petitioner wanted to examine Sh. Ankur Chalwa in support of his defence, thus now what is sought to be pleaded that Sh.Ankur Chalwa has to be examined is clearly an afterthought more so because of the conduct of the petitioner in which the petitioner wants now to challenge not only the issue of non examination of Sh. Ankur Chalwa but also of Sh. Manoj Kumar Banthia with the additional aspect of petitioner being entitled to claim production of various documents and which aspect has already been dealt with and rejected by me above.

15. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- and which costs can be recovered by the respondent no.1 from the dues which are payable to the petitioner. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.