Vinod Kumar Kataria v. Union of India

15. Rejoinder is duly filed by the petitioner reiterating his stand in the petition. Additionally, it is stated that no administrative officer has ever looked after field jobs and it is field officer (Total strength 10)/ Account officer (Totalstrength 4) who used to look after such type of job in the past. In fact, petitioner stated that through an RTI application filed, hehas received information that 10 posts for Field Officers are available at CCRT. Further, it is also stated that respondent no. 2 has malafidely freezed the HRA and transport allowance without giving any notice.Petitionerhas not been provided with accommodation and food facilityat CCRTRC,Udaipur.It is also stated that the petitioner never allowed respondent No.2’sDirector to do any wrong act,any financial irregularity/scam as it has happened in past, hence therespondent no.2’s Directorwho himself is an accused in the past scam, with the helpof Deputy Director is relying on the transferpolicy to throw out the petitioner.

16. It is also statedby the petitioner that as per the DoPT Rules, if there is no sanctioned post then attachment can be done for less than 90 days that tooon rotational basis. W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 6 C.M. No. 11951/2020

17. It is pertinent to note that in the meantime thepetitioner hadalso filed another writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 3233/2020 owing to the onset of covid-19 pandemic seeking a direction to the CCRT to allow the petitioner to work from CCRT,New Delhi after lockdown. Since the present petition was already pendingadjudication, the Court vide Order dated May 22, 2020 dismissed thesaid petition as withdrawn with liberty to the petitionerto move an appropriate application in the present petition. In pursuance thereof,the petitioner has preferred the present application bearing C.M. No. 11951/2020.

18. This application is filed with the followingprayers: “(A) In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that the transfer orders dated 26.1l.2019 may be pleased be set aside in the interest of justice. As respondents are provided sufficient timeby Hon'ble High Court to file counter-affidavit/reply within six weeks but till date respondents have not filed the reply this clears that respondents (CCRT) transfer order is wholly illegal, mala fide and need to be set aside with heavy cost based on the above facts and grounds in the interest of Justice. (B) Special enquiry order may be issued to Central Vigilance Commission to investigate the above said facts regarding Respondents (CCRT).

(C) To carry out the work of regional centres of respondents

(CCRT), rotational policy is to be framed in consultation of respondents (MoC) through DoPT for Deputy Director, Field Officer and Accounts Officer. And for administrative and financial work assistance, Deputy Director (Finance), Deputy Director (Admin) and Administrative Officer may have frequent visit to regional centers equally on rotation basis”.

19. It is stated in the present application that the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2/CCRT having not filed the reply/counter W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 7 affidavit to the present petition even after the passage of 20 weeks, over and above the stipulated time of 6 weeks as granted vide the order December 02, 2019, is itself indicative of the fact the impugned order has been passed illegally and capriciously.

20. It is stated by the petitioner that the present Director of respondent No.2/CCRT, is part of a Scam of which investigation is being conducted by the Delhi Police. It is also statedby the petitioner that the Director of respondent No.2/CCRThas made transfers without any concept of rotation and he intentionally included the Administrative Officer post knowing very well that no such post exists in the Regional Centres of respondent No.2/CCRT. Moreover, it is also stated that All India Service liability exists where post is also available on all India basis, hence Rules 46(1) & (2) of the Service Bye-Laws of CCRT mentioned in the Transfer Policy is not applicable to Administrative Officer post.

21. It is also stated that the petitioner reported at the CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur and stayed therefrom December 9, 2020 to February 28, 2020. According to the petitioner,he foundthat no post of Administrative Officer exists and also foundthat there is no work relatingto administrative matters andthe same were being taken up by the Head Quarters CCRT, Delhi.Even advertisements were published by the respondentNo.2/CCRT for four posts of Accounts Officer with one post indicatedat CCRT Regional Centre,Udaipur.This,according to the petitioner, clearly indicates the malafide intention of the respondent No.2 in issuing theimpugned order.

22. It is also stated that the petitioner has sought various information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’, for W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 8 short) on theappointment of the Director of respondent No. 2 CCRT and has stated that his appointmentis illegal as no vigilance clearance was provided. Further,by relying upon information receivedunderthe RTI Act, Dr. Rahul Kumar had given technical resignation in CCRT on July 01, 2019 and was relieved on July 04, 2019 (AN) to join IGNCA as Research Officer under Direct Recruitment vide order CCRT/l1012/1/2010/719/3858 dated July 04, 2019 without any lien. Thereafter,CCRT had issued him a letter vide CCRT/11011/02/2011 dated November 25, 2019 stating that on the recommendation of DPC and with the approval of Competent Authority Dr. Rahul Kumar is promoted to the post of Deputy Director (General) w.e.f. November 25, 2019. Dr. Rahul Kumar is required to join as Filed Officer in CCRT before joining as Deputy Director (General).Dr. Rahul Kumar has not kept lien on the post of Research Officer in IGNCA as per information receivedunderRTI (IGNCA) which shows the malafide intention of respondent (CCRT).Thus,it is stated Dr. Rahul Kumar has no right of promotion because he is not the internal candidate of CCRT at the time of promotion and lien was not retained by him on Field Officer post and moreoverIGNCA has not issued anyletter that he cannot be absorbed in IGNCA due to his inefficiency etc.by overlooking theguidelines of DoPT issued on Technical Resignation & Lien vide OM No. 28020/1/2010- Estt ( C) dated August 17, 2016.

23. Reply is duly filed to the application by the respondent No.2/CCRT.On the maintainabilityof the application, it is stated by respondent No.2 that the prayers made in the application are beyond the prayers as made in the main writ petition. It is also stated the petitioner having been posted at Udaipur and performing his duties W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 9 there,the application is infructuous.

24. It is stated by the respondent No.2/CCRT that the scholarship scam was a mischief played by a contractualemployee and due to the negligence of some officials of theCentre.Thematter was reported to the police in 2017 and action including the arrest of the persons has already taken.Substantial amount of money stands recovered. The allegations as made by the petitioner against the current Director of respondent No.2/CCRT, Rishi Kumar Vashist,is mala fide as he was nowhere involved in the matter.The police have given him and all other officials a clean chit andhave made them witness to the crime committed by thecontractual employee.

25. Rejoinder is duly filed by the petitioner,reiterating his claim in the application and writ petition. W.P (C) 4421/2020

26. In the back ground of the facts as noted above in W.P (C) 12674/2019 and connected application being C.M 11951/2019, it is stated by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 issued a Suspension Order CCRT/11022/04/2020/221 dated July 03, 2020 and a Memorandum along with Articles of Charge vide CCRT/11022/04/2020/223 dated July03, 2020.

27. This petition is filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

28. It is stated by the petitioner that therespondents have started a flimsy enquiry as per the Central Civil Service (Classification,Control and Appeals) Rules, 1965 (‘Rules of 1965’, for short) and Service Bye-Laws of CCRT/respondent No.2, in order to protect themselves from the allegations in the complaints filed by the petitioner against W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 11 Director of respondent No.2 and appointed V. Renganathan, IPS (Retd.) as the Enquiry Officer who is a practicing Advocate. It is stated that no show cause notice whatsoever was issued to petitioner for enquiry and the Office Memorandum vide CCRT/11022/02/2019/6311dated August 16, 2019 was issued through a contractual employeeintimating thepetitioner to be present before the Enquiry Officer on August 19, 2019.

29. I deem it appropriate to reproduce theArticles of Charge framed against thepetitioner as noted at page 74 of the petition which reads as under: “Statement of Article of Charges framed against Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria, Administrative Officer presently posted at CCRT, Regional Centre Udaipur: Article of Charge[1] Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria, Administrative Officer vide Office Order No, CCRT/11017/07/ 2019(Pt.)/895 dated 26.11.2019 was transferred to CCRTRegional Centre,Udaipur, Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria joined Regional Centre on 09.12.2019 but he did not provide his local address for office record. To get the local address of Shri Kataria a Memo No. CCRT/11012/02/2011/87/8006 on 26.12.2019 was issued to him. Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria. Administrative Officer neither responded nor provided the desired information however Consultant, Regional Centre, Udaipur vide his mail dated 02.01.2020 had informed that Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria, Administrative Officer from the date of his joining i.e. 09.12.2020 was staying in the premises of CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur without approval of Competent Authority. Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria has thus hide the information regarding his stay in the premises of CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur to continue to avail the HRA from CCRT. Thus, Shri Kataria has violated the provisions of Rule 47 (1) & ( 2) of the CCRT Service Byelaws and Rule 3 (i),(ii),(iii),(vi), (xviii) & (xix) of the CCS W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 12 (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as amended. Article of Charge 2 Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria, Administrative Officer vide his application had applied for one day commuted leave for 29.01. 2019 on medical ground. The medical certificate submitted by Shri Kataria of 29.01.2019 issued by Dr, Falgani Thakkar ( BAMS), Registration No. DBCP/A/7063 suggests two days rest for 29.01.2019 and 30.01.2019 and fit for duties from 31.01,2019. However, Shri Kataria joined CCRT on 30.01.2019 against the advice of the Doctor. Thus, Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria with mala fide intention had submitted his medical certificate for illness that suggests either the medical certificate issued by the Doctor is fake or the ground of medical for leave is fake which is against the Conduct and leave Rules of the Government. Accordingly Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria, AdministrativeOfficer was asked to explain the reasons vide Office Memorandum NoCCRT/11012/02/2011/115 dated 20.01. 2020, Shri Kataria willfully and with mala fide intention used the medical certificate for availing commuted leave and thereby to cheat the Competent Authority, CCRT Thus, Shri Kataria has violated the provisions of Rule 47 (a) 8c ( 2) of the CCRT Service Dye-laws and Rule 3 (i), (ii, (iii), (vi), ( xviii ) & (xix) of the CCS {Conduct) Rules, 1964 as amended. Article of Charge 3 Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria, Administrative Officer vide letter No, CCRT/110^ 2/02/2011/965 dated 27.01.2020 was advised to sign as witness on the lease Agreement with the Landlord pertaining to the buildings of CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur, However, Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria, Administrativeofficer vide his letter dated 30.01.2020 refused to sign as a witness on the Lease Agreement and stated that he has filed a Writ Petition against the Transfer Order. Therefore, it will be contrary for him if he signs as witness. Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria was transferred to CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur on 26.11,2019 to attend administrative work of the Centre. Since preparation of Lease Agreement including signing as a witness on the lease Agreementis an administrative work which is supposed to be taken care of by him. By refusing to sign as a witness in the Lease Agreement, being an Administrative W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 13 Officer, he has disobeyed the instructions / order s of the Competent Authority that amounts to subordination. Thus, Shri Kataria has violated the provisions of Rule 47 (1) &(2) of the CCRT Service Bye -laws and Rule 3 (i),(ii), (iii),(vi),(xviii) & (xix) of the CCS {Conduct) Rules, 1964 as amended. Article of Charge 4 Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria, Administrative Officer vide his Earned Leave application dated 31.12.2019 from 06.01.2020 to 17 01.2020 (12 days) 4th and 5 th January, 2020 prefix and 18th & 19th January, 2020 as suffix had proceeded on leave and left Regional Centre, Udaipur without the approval of Competent Authority. Further, as per Note CCRT/RC/UDI/1112/12/2019/Hi- 1133 dated 07th January, 2020 provided by CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur, Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria had directed the official of Regional Centre not to forward his Earned Leave application to Headquarter, New Delhi for approval of Competent Authority till he joins office back. Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria with mala fide intention directed the official of Regional Centre not to forward his Earned Leave application to CCRT Headquarter, New Delhi for approval of Competent Authority till he join office back. Thus, Shri. Vinod Kumar Kataria has violated the provisions of Rule 47 (1) & ( 2) of the CCRT Service Bye -laws and Rule 3 (i), (ii), (iii), (vi),(xviii) & (xix) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as amended. Article of Charge 5 Shri. Vinod Kumar Kataria, AdministrativeOfficer while working in General Administration Section; CCRT did not attend his official duty properly that resulted in the huge accumulation of water bill, Due to irresponsible attitude of Shri. Kataria,CCRT faced problems and a huge penalty for non-payment of Water Bill was imposed by Delhi Jal Board. Further,Shri Kataria during his tenure in General Administration purchased a Water Meter at the cost 25,000/- on 18,12.2018utilizing Rule 154 of GFR, 2017. The water meter was available in the market for Rs.10,800/- for which quotation/rate was obtained by Shri Katana and the approval of Competent Authority was taken on 15.11.2018. After purchase of water meter and installation of the same at CCRT premises, Shri W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 14 Katana did not submit the Meter Testing Report in Delhi Jal Board and the records of Delhi Jal Board continued to show as stop meter in the records of Delhi Jal Board for CCRT from December 2018 to December 2019. Due to non-submission of Meter Testing Report in Delhi Jal Board by Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria,CCRT faced huge penalty and the Bill of the water went up to more than Rs. 98.93 Lakhs. The meter purchased by Shri Katana from M/S R.K. Saini & Co.,H.No. 218, Haii Nagat Ashram,New Delhi- 110014 at the cost of Rs. 25,OOOA was available for Rs, 10,800/in the nearby shop at Sector - 7, Dwarka for which the approval of Competent Authority was taken. This suggests that Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria with mala fide intention and for his financial gains had purchased the meter at a very high cost from the Agency located at a distant place instead of from the agency located at nearby place of CCRT.Thus, Shri Kataria has violated the provisions of Rule 47 (1) & (2) of the CCRT Service Byelaws and Rule 3 (i),(ii), (iii),(vi),(xviii) &(xix) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as amended. Article of Charge 6 Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria, Administrative Officer and being buyer / purchaser under GeM by CCRT moved a proposal for the purchase of five (05) items by quoting Rule 149 of GFR 2017. The proposal was approved by the Competent Authority such as HP Toner 36A (02 Nos.),HP Toner 88A {04 Nos.),TVS gold Keyboard (01No,), HP Toner 49A (02 Nos.) and HP Toner 12A(01No.) as per Rule 149 of GFR 2017 and on Page No. 5/Note on File No. CCRT/31014/01/2019 on 05.03.2019. Accordingly, for the purchase of the goods Shri Kataria placed an Order in GeM on 06.03.2019 and he further mentioned that expected delivery in GeM is 15 days w.e.f. 07.03.2019. The total expenditure involved was of Rs. 37,946/-.Shri. Katariain his note on page No.4/N of the same file has mentioned that the rates of items mentioned at Note No. 3/N are added in the shopping Cart In GeM Portal. The rates are valid for 10 days only. However, Shri Kataria instead of approved five (05) items procured only three (03) items instead of five (OS) items for which approval was taken such as 12A Toner Cartridge (01No.), Richprint 88A Toner Cartridge – (04 Nos.) and Cartridge 36A Toner (02 Nos.) but on higher rates at a cost of Rs. 27,949.79/- mentioning that items were out of stock thus rate of the W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 15 items increased. But, Shri Kataria did not seek the approval of the Competent authority before procuring the items on the higher rates. Further, he did not mention anything about the remaining two (02) Items for which the approval of the Competent Authority had already been taken. As per norms for procurement through GeM the rates cannot be increased by the vendor to whom order has been placed, if anything happens regarding the nonavailability of items the Vendor has to seek the approval of the organization that placed the order of purchase of items. Shri Kataria with mala fide intentions manipulated rates of items for his personal financial gains and causing loss to CCRT.Thus, Shri Kataria has violated the provisions of Rule 47 (1) & (2) of the CCRT Service Bye-laws and Rule 3 (i),(ii),(iii),(vi),(xviii) & (xix) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules,1964 as amended. Article of Charge 7 Shri Vinod Kumar Kataria, Administrative Officer, CCRT, Ministry of Culture while posted in General Administration Division/Section, CCRT has committed gross financial and. administrative irregularities by disobeying his duties and responsibilities as AdministrativeOfficer. With respect to financial and administrative irregularities. CCRT had received complaints from vendors and staff of CCRT against Shri Kataria with serious allegations such as demanding bribe and other favour from Vendors and for complaints of misconduct from the staff of CCRT. Keeping in view, the complaints made by Vendors and staff of CCRT, it was decided to conduct an enquiry to check the veracity of the complaints. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the Preliminary Enquiry submitted its report stating that Shri Kataria has committed financial and administrative irregularities including harassment and insubordination with mala fide intention and for his personal gain Shri Kataria has violated the provisions of Rule 47 (1) & (2) of the CCRT Service Bye-laws and Rule 3 (i),(ii),(iii),(vi),(xviii) &(xix) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules,1964 as amended. Article of Charge 8 Shrl Vinod Kumar Kataria, Administrative Officer, CCRT, Ministry of Culture while posted In General Administration Division/Section, CCRT has committed gross financial and W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 16 administrative Irregularities by disobeying his duties and responsibilities as Administrative Officer. While working In General Administration Oivislon/Section,CCRT Shri. Katarla with the help of Shri Braham Prakash, IDC, CCRT in File No. 11014/4/ 2018 has moved a proposal for the purchase of five (05) stationary items for CCRT at the estimated cost of Rs. 47,300/- on 30.08.2018.Shri Kataria misrepresented the facts in his note that GeMPortal shall be utilised by the Govt. Buyers for direct online purchase upto Rs. 50,000/- through any of the available suppliers on the GeM as per Rule of 149 of GFR. This statement was false with mala fide intention as CCRT was not registered in GeM, when the proposed purchase of items through online was done. Shri Kataria through this misrepresentation of fact with malafide intentions for his personal gains and causing loss to CCRT manipulated the purchase of items for the estimated expenditure of Rs. 47,300/- 4 GST from his favoured Agency i.e. M/s Chhavi Trading Company, S-128, Param Puri, Uttam Nagar,New Delhi. Thus, Shri Kataria has violated the provisions of Rule 47 (1) &(2) of the CCRT Service Bye-laws and Rule 3 (i),(ii),(iii), (vi), (xviii) &(xix) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules,1964 as amended.

30. It is stated that on August 19, 2019, petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and apprised him of complaint against Rishi Kumar Vashist, Director of respondent No. 2 (CCRT) under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. Petitioner also requested for copies of complaints receivedfrom the officials and vendors of CCRT against petitioner,so that reply can be filed within 10 days from the receipt of the same. The request was denied by the Enquiry Officer vide communication dated August 22, 2019. The petitioner thereafter, filed the reply to the impugned Suspension Order on July 04, 2020 and Memorandumwith Articlesof Charge on July 06, 2020.

31. It is stated by the petitioner that thecontents of the Suspension Order are concocted andflimsy as therespondentNo.2/CCRT is not W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 17 empowered to issue the impugned Suspension Order under Rule (10)(1) of the Rules of 1965, as the Officer/Director is under investigation under thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and as per the said Rule the Officer is also to be put underSuspension from the date of investigation till thedate the same is completed. This beingthe law, in the case of the Director of CCRT, no enquiry whatsoever is ordered by the CCRT or even by the Ministry of Culture.Moreover, it is stated that the Suspension Order is issued in a planned manner so that the petitioner’s right for the post of Deputy Director (Administration) could be wiped off as he is the lone internal candidate beingan Administrative Officerwho meets the qualification requirementsof the post. The Director of CCRT/respondent No.2 has initiatedthe enquiry at New Delhi after petitionerfiled complaints and Court Cases against him and CCRT. To save himself from the petitioner’s complaints and variousCourt Cases,Rishi Kumar Vashist, Director of CCRT/respondent No.2 has started this enquiry. The Suspension Order is issued with malafide intention in planned manner so that respondent No.2/CCRT can recruit Deputy Director (Administration) post as per his whims andfancies.

32. It is further stated that contents of the Memorandumare also ill founded as CCRT is an organization registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and workingunder aegis of Ministryof Culture and therefore Rule 2(f) of the Rules of 1965 applies to only those establishments or organisations which are declared by the President by a notification in the Official Gazette. In other words, it is the stand of the petitioner that it is on the respondent No.2/ CCRT to establish being notified in the Official Gazette, the Rules of 1965 W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 18 applies on the employees of respondent No.2/CCRT.

33. On the contents of Articles of Charge 1, it is stated that when the petitioner was transferred to CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur, no written details of exigencies of work was given to the petitioner. Further, it is stated that petitioner being an administrative officer has right to ask information from respondent No.2/CCRT as to the existence of sanctioned post of Administrative Officer at regional centre, CCRT, Udaipur and its various regional centres and policy page on existence of regional centre, CCRT, Udaipur where petitioner is transferred to show there is no violation of Service Bye- Laws of CCRT and CCS (Conduct) Rules by petitioner. In fact, it is stated by the petitioner that the Transfer Policy that never existed in various regional centres violate the Service Bye-Law of CCRT and CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It is stated that the petitioner has filed complaint in National Commission for Schedules Castes (NCSC), SHO, DCP and in District Court Dwarka for atrocities and harassment done by the Director of respondent No.2/ CCRT.

34. It is stated that the Enquiry Officer was appointed thereafter without any notice and in fact he is a practicing lawyer which strikes at the root of Rule 14 (8)(a) of the Rules of 1965. It is also stated that complaints being subjudice in respective forums, the action against thepetitioner is in violation of Service-Bye-Laws.

35. It is also statedby the petitioner that he was transferred to the CCRT Regional Centre where sanctioned post does not exist and status accommodation was not granted to him. On Article 1 of the charge sheet which alleges petitioner claimed HRA benefits even while staying in the premises; it is statedthat temporary arrangement W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 19 for accommodation was made by the respondents, however the petitioner was in search of alternate accommodation. It was when he was searching alternate accommodation that the respondent/CCRT issued the Memo at hislocal address on December 29, 2019. It is also stated by him that he has already paid advance for his alternate accommodation which was not conveyed by the Consultant to the respondents.Moreover, it is stated by the petitioner that thepetitioner had in fact submitted information to the respondent No.2/CCRT regarding his local address at Udaipur.

36. On Article 2 of the charge sheet where the petitioner was alleged to have submitteda false medical certificate,the same is also denied.

37. It is stated by the petitioner that Article 3 and 4 of the charge sheet are also false and flimsy. On Article 3 it is stated that after scrutiny of the lease agreement and file of the hired building, the petitioner had given his remarkson various shortcoming noticed in file that it is hired on rent by respondent (CCRT) for CCRT Regional Centre Udaipur, without clearance from local authorities for conducting training in residential area, even mess is running in basement without any fire clearance,conditionsof lease agreement are not as per Law etc, Instead of taking anyaction respondent (CCRT) start pressurizing petitionerto sign the wrong lease agreement of the rented building. Moreover respondent (CCRT) has not paid the rent of the building to owner for approximately six to seven months that comes in lakhs.It is also stated that the Lease Agreement of the rented building is prepared and drafted by the respondent (CCRT) at New Delhi. This act of respondent (CCRT)is in clear violation of Service W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 20 Bye-Laws of CCRT and CCS (Conduct) Rules, that respondent (CCRT) quotedfor the petitioner.

38. The petitioner hasalso denied the Article 5. On Article 6 of the Memorandum, it is stated that initial sanction was accorded by the Competent Authority of respondent (CCRT). Petitioner was made buyer/consignee by respondent (CCRT) for items whose demands received from various sections, so liabilityof certificate for items lies on sections that had put the demand.

39. It is the case of the petitioner on Article 7 of the Memorandum that he has already filed a complaint to theChairperson of respondent (CCRT), Chairman National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC), SHO, DCP and in District Court Dwarka for atrocities and harassment done by Rishi Kumar Vashist, Director of respondent (CCRT). It is stated that the respondent has appointed V. Renganathan, IPS (Retd.) as Enquiry Officer who is a practicing Advocate, without any Notice, is against the Rule-14 (8)(a) of the Rules of 1965 and the matter is already subjudiced in the respective forum.Further,Rishi Kumar Vashist,Director of respondent (CCRT) with malafide intention got made a concocted complaint through vendor and staff those are very close to him, around 11 and 12 June, 2019 that clearly shows the malafide intention of Rishi Kumar Vashist, and also a proof that he can go to any level to harass and humiliate the petitioner.

40. Further on Charge 8 of the Memorandum, it is stated by the petitioner that thepetitioner has procured the items after the approval of the Ex-Director of respondent(CCRT) and that the proposal was put up by the care taker of the store and the petitioner being and W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 21 administrative official had given his remarks on the file. It is also stated that later Ex-Director of respondent (CCRT) hadgiven approval after seeking clarification. It is also stated that with the passage of time, the Director of respondent (CCRT) has tampered with the documents on thefile and made concoctedflimsystory to make wrong allegation against the petitioner.

41. It is stated by the petitioner that theorder of suspension is not immunefrom judicial scrutinyunder Article 226 of the Constitution. In this regard reliance has been placed on the Judgment in the case of State of Kerala v. K.C. George, 1984(1) LLJ 512, wherein a Division Bench of theKerala High Court upheld the order of a learned Single Judge quashingthe order of suspension.

42. It is also statedthat the continuous harassment by the Director of respondent (CCRT)resulted in the petitioner giving complaint to various Authorities and Courts as mentioned in paragraph 39. Therefore, according to him the impugned orders are aimed at harassing and causing damageto the petitioner. Reliance is also placed on Dipankar Sengupta v. UBI & Ors., 1999 (1) LLJ 208, to contend that the Court shall confine judicialreview in disciplinaryproceedings in cases of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.

43. A counter-affidavit has been duly filed by the respondent No.2. It is stated by respondent No.2 that as on date the petitioner is an unauthorisedabsentee and an absconder who has not joined the place of his posting as is mentioned in the suspension order and has illegally left Udaipur Regional Office without any valid authority or sanction. Moreover,it is stated that since thepetitioner has not been reporting to the headquarters in Delhi from the date he has been W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 22 suspended,no work no pay rule shall be applicable to him,making the petition, liable to rejected and/or dismissed.

44. It is also stated that the writ petition involves disputed facts which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.It is further stated that the complaints preferred by the petitioner against the earlier Director of respondent No.2 and the current Director as well, are in no way connectedto the passing of the impugned orders.

45. It is stated by the respondent/CCRT that suspension of an employee is purely an administrative function and not a quasi-judicial function. Further,suspension pending departmental enquiry against a government servant is not a punishment and the petitioner being governed by the Rules of 1965, Rule 10 of the same, enables an employee be placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry. It is also statedthat the petitioner has failed to exhaust the remedy of appeal available to him underRule 23(i) of the Rules of 1965 which itself can be a ground to reject the present petition as being premature.

46. Reliance has been placed by respondent No. 2 on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and ors. v. Prabhas Chandra Mirdha, 2012 (11) SCC 565, to contend that a writ petition ordinarily does not lie against a charge sheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action.

47. On the plea of non-applicability of the Rulesof 1965, it is stated that respondent No.2 is a society under the aegis of Ministry of Culture with its own Memorandum of Association and Rules & W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 23 Regulations. The chairperson of the society is appointed by the Governmentof India. In the year 1979, respondent No. 2 framed its own service regulations which are known as “Centre for Cultural Resources and Training (Service) Regulations”. In Rule 58A of the Service Bye-laws, it is stated that “in respect of any matters not specifically provided for in these rules relating to Conduct, Disciple, Appeal, and Review the relevant provisions contained in the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 as amended from time to time shall apply mutatis mutandis to employees of the Centre.”

48. It is stated that the petitioner was issued three Office memorandums dated November 08, 2012, February 10, 2016 and February 23, 2016. Besides on the basis of the fact-finding Enquiry Report by the Enquiry Officer and as per the report of M/s Truth Labs in Forensic examination of Hard Disk of the computer used by the petitioner while posted at CCRT, HQ, New Delhi, it has been established that the petitioner has impersonated by filing various complaints in the name of different persons against senior officers of the organization just to defame and malign their image with a hidden agenda.

49. That apart it is stated that the petitioner’s plea that the Director is not the competent authority to pass the suspension order, it is stated that as per Rule 10(1) of the Rules of 1965, the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by special or general order, may place a government servant under Suspension. It is stated that the even after the prayers made by the petitioner vide CM No.15923/2020 for stay W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 24 of the suspension order as well as treating his headquarter as New Delhi was not acceded to by this Court, the petitioner did not join the place of work at Udaipur. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that merely passing of an order of suspension of government servant does not put an end to his service under the government and the relationship of master and servant does not cease. An officer under suspension cannot leave his headquarter without prior permission. In the present case, the petitioner is absent from his duties in Udaipur since July 4, 2020.

50. It is further stated that even though statement was made on behalf of the petitioner that he shall complete all formalities for receiving the subsistence allowance, even after the respondent No. 2 intimating the petitioner vide letter dated September, 24, 2020 to report at his headquarter within 3 days, the same was not complied with. Moreover, the suspension of the petitioner was reviewed by the Committee of CCRT and vide its order dated September 30, 2020 further extended the same for 30 more days. Respondent No. 2 has also stated that the petitioner is not cooperating in the departmental enquiry proceedings.

51. A rejoinder is duly filed by the petitioner, additionally alleging that the Suspension Order passed by Director of CCRT/respondent No.2 is in violation of OM dated January 24, 1963, which reads as “Officers performing current duties of a post cannot exercise statutory powers under the rules. The Law Ministry has advised that an officer appointed to perform the current duties of an appointment can exercise administrative or W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 25 financial powers vested in the full-fledged incumbent of the post, but he cannot exercise statutory powers, whether those powers are derived direct from an Act of parliament (i.e Income Tax Act) or Rules, Regulations and By-Laws made under various Articles of the Constitution (e.g Fundamental Rules, Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Delegation of Financial Powers Rules etc)”.

52. An affidavit is filed by respondent N0.2/CCRT vide CM. No 32512/2020 (for placing additionaldocuments on record, which was duly allowed by this Court vide order dated December 11, 2020), stating that the post of Director General was declared null andvoid by the concerned Ministryin a letter dated March 5, 2013 and that the Director of CCRT/respondent No.2 is the overall head of CCRT and thus appointingauthority for all group ‘B’ posts. It is also stated that even the appointment of thepetitioner was done by respondent No.2. This stand was also refuted by the petitioner by filing another rejoinder to the aforesaidaffidavit.

53. Thereafter, petitioner also preferred an application being C.M. No.33624/2020for stay of inquiryproceedings till the payment of subsistence allowance to the Petitioner.

SUBMISSIONS

54. It is stated by Mr. Bharat Singh, learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Director of respondent No.2/CCRT with malafide intention and to takerevenge for a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner against pay scale anomalyand complaints, issued the impugned order to the petitioner when no sanctioned post of Administrative Officer exist at Regional Centre,CCRT, Udaipur, that W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 26 too without any written details of exigencies of work at CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur, moreover transfer is made with immediate effect until further orders.

55. It is submitted by Mr. Singh that the after the impugnedorder of transferwas issued, thepetitioner hadpreferred a representation to the respondent No.2/CCRT on November 26, 2019 thereby seeking a) copy of policy page for existence of CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur in accordance to Ministryof Culture (b) copy of authorised/sanctioned post of AdministrativeOfficer that exist in CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur as approved by Ministryof Culture. Insteadof providing the requisite information, the respondent No.2/CCRT threatened the petitioner by reply dated November 26, 2019 wherein it is stated that instead of complying with the Transfer Order dated 26.11.2019, you are raising frivolous objections. It will be in your interest to proceed with the Transfer Order and do not indulge in any unwarranted correspondence.

56. It is further submitted by him that respondentNo.2/ CCRT has said in its Transfer Policy, all employees have all India transfer liability excluding ‘Hostel Warden’, which means there is only one sanctioned post of Hostel Warden and in the same way there is only one sanctionedpost of ‘Administrative Officer’. But with malafide intention Director of respondent No.2/CCRTtransferred thepetitioner to CCRT, Regional Centre,Udaipur.

57. It is submitted by Mr. Singh that respondent No.2/ CCRT has advertised the post of Accounts Officer for its CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur which itself is self-explanatory that thepost which exist is of Accounts Officer and not of Administrative Officer. That apart, W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 27 respondent No.2/CCRThad never taken up the matter for creation of post of AdministrativeOfficer for its CCRT, Regional Centre,Udaipur with Ministry of Culture.

58. It is also submitted that respondent No.2/CCRT froze the allowances of petitioner of Delhi city and restricted it to other state (i.e., Udaipur) where no post of Administrative Officer exists. Petitioner has also submitted a complaint for improper salary to respondent No.2/CCRT.

59. Mr. Singh submittedthat the haste with which therequest from the Regional Centre, Udaipur, seeking administrative support by posting / transferring an experienced person conversant with administrative matters was acted upon by passing the impugned orders transferring thepetitioner is also indicative of malafide intent on the part of the respondent No. 2.

60. Mr. Singh has relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, 2009 (2) SCC 592, wherein it is inter-alia held that administrative orders which are related to incident of service, should not interfered with except in cases where malafide intent on part of the authority is proved.

61. On the principle of malice on facts,it is submitted by Mr. Singh that (a) thereis no sanctioned post of AdministrativeOfficer at CCRT, Regional Centre, Udaipur; (b) petitionerhas filed Writ Petition in this Court being W.P.(C)-11592/2019for pay scale anomaly; (c) complaint against Rishi Kumar Vashist,Director,CCRT in National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC)under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 for Discrimination and Service Harassment vide Case W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 28 No.1740/30/3/2019-1513 and; (d) complaint against Rishi Kumar Vashist for appointment as Director to PMO and case underScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Amendment Act, 2015 in the District Court at Dwarka vide CT Case 1539/2019, and all matters are sub-judice.

62. Similarly, on the principle of malice in law it is submitted by Mr. Singh when all matters are sub-judice, the respondent No.2 curtailed the allowances and lastly suspendedthe petitionerw.e.f July 03, 2020 (A/N) without waiting for an order of Court. Further, Suspension Order and Memorandum with Articles of Charge have been issued by the respondent No.2 both on the same date, i.e., July 03, 2020.

63. That apart, it is submitted by Mr. Singh that there exist no separate Establishment Section at respondent No.2/CCRT. Even, in RTI application preferred,respondent No.2 replied that there is one post of AdministrativeOfficer but Dr. Rahul Kumar who is Deputy Director (General) of respondent No.2/CCRThas solemnly affirmed and declared that heis in charge of Establishment, when, there is no Establishment Section created.The stand of Dr. Rahul Kumar, Deputy Director (General) that he is in-charge of Establishment is ill founded. It is submitted that the scam which happenedin respondent No.2, was brought to the noticeof PMO, CVC, respondent No.1 by thepetitioner and the conduct of petitioner is very clean, good, without any stigma. On other hand the Director and Deputy Director are involved in scholarship scam and many other cases.

64. Reliance is also placed by Mr. Singh on Arvind Dattatraya Dhande v. State of Maharashtra, 1997 6 SCC 169, wherein the W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 29 Supreme Court inter alia held that in view of unimpeachable and eloquent testimony of performanceof duties,the transferof an officer was held to be malafide exercise of power.

65. On the otherhand,it is submitted by Mr. Amit Mahajan,learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the petition, bearing W.P.(C) 12674/2019 is not maintainable as the impugned order is issued purely for administrativereasons due to exigencies of the work and the same is not tainted by malafide or illegality as alleged by the petitioner.

66. According to Mr. Mahajan,as per the appointment letter, the appointment carries with it the liability to serve in any part of the countryand the appointment was accepted by the petitioner vide his letter dated June 13, 2011 with all terms and conditions mentioned in the Appointment Letter. In fact, even in the joining report of the petitioner datedSeptember 12, 2011, hehad accepted all theterms and conditions of the appointmentletter.

67. It is submitted by Mr. Mahajan that CCRT has three regional centres at Udaipur, Hyderabad and Guwahati and for the better management and need based requirement and looking at the exigencies of work, the CCRT vide Office Order No. CCRT/II017/12/201S/2784 dated May 21, 2019 had circulated a Transfer Policy to all the Officers/ staff.

68. It is further submitted by him that a request was in fact received by the concerned officer from CCRT,Regional Centre Udaipur vide letter dated November 25, 2019 seeking administrative support by posting / transferring an experienced person, conversant with administrative matters at the Regional Centreto supervise the under W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 30 construction building of CCRT, liaison with CPWD Engineers, upkeep of the rented buildings of CCRT, Housekeeping jobs, tender preparation work for catering,security servicesetc. According to him it was on the basis of this needraised from the CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur and as per the Transfer Policy that the petitioner was transferred vide the impugnedorder.

69. That apart it is submitted by Mr. Mahajan that the petitioner after joining his new place of duty i.e., CCRT Regional Centre Udaipur, instead of attending to his administrativeduties thepetitioner started raising irrelevant issues and seeking policy page of CCRT, Regional Centre, Udaipur which is administratively wrong and insubordination by thePetitioner.

70. Further, by drawing the attention of the Court to various judicial proceedingsinitiated by the petitioner as stated in paragraph 39, Mr. Mahajan stated that suspension of an employee is purely an administrative function andnot a quasi-judicial one and suspension pendingenquiry is not a punishment. According to him as per Rule 10 of the Rules of 1965, an employee can be placed undersuspension in contemplation of a departmental enquiry.Moreover,the petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity/illegality in thechargememo issued to him on July 3, 2020, the same day on which he was placed under suspension.It is also submittedby Mr. Mahajan that the petitioner has even failed to exhaust the remedy of appeal available to him under Rule 23(i) of the Rulesof 1965.

71. By relying upon the Apex Court judgment in Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors. v. Prabhas Chandra Mirdha, 2012 (11) SCC 565, he stated that the charge memo cannot be challenged at the W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 31 initial stage except on limited ground such as lack of authority in the person/authority issuing thechargememo or such other fundamental grounds. He also statedthat petitionerhas in fact concealed the fact of issuanceof an additionalchargesheet dated September 19, 2020 while filing C.M. No. 23068/2020.

72. On the plea taken by the petitioner that the Rules of 1965 will not be applicable to the employees of respondent No.2/CCRT, it is stated by Mr. Mahajan that CCRT is a society under the aegis of Ministryof Culture,Government of India. The society has its own Memorandum of Association and Rules & Regulations. The Chairperson of the society is appointed by Government of India and as per Rule 22 (vii) of Rules and Regulations of the CCRT, the society has power to frame with the approval of Government of India its regulations byelawsand rules of procedure.Further, it is stated by him that Rule 26 provides that,“The Society may delegate to the Director General of the Society or any of its members and/or any other employees of the Society such administrative and financial powers and impose such duties as deem proper and also prescribe limitations within which said powers and duties are to be exercised or discharged”. Rule 35 prescribes duties of all the employees of the Society which shall be exercised under such supervision and disciplinary control as may be necessarysubject to Rulesand bye-laws that may be framed.Additionally,Rule 58A of the Service Bye-laws state that “In respect of any matters not specifically provided for in these rulesrelating to Conduct,Discipline,Appeals and Review, the relevant provisions contained in the Rules of 1965 as amended from time to time shall apply mutatis mutandis to employees of the Centre. W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 32

73. That apart, it is also submitted that thepetitioner has not been cooperating with departmental enquiry for which EnquiryOfficer and Presenting Officer have already been appointed. He seeks the dismissal of the petition.

74. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in both the petitions, theissue(s) which need to be decided primarily are whether the impugned order dated November 26, 2019 (in W.P.(C) 12674/2019), the Suspension order dated July 03, 2020 and Memorandumalongwith Articles of Charge dated July 03, 2020 (in W.P.(C) 4421) are proper, justifiedand validly issued.

75. At the outset, I shall deal with the issue of transfer of the petitioner to Udaipur vide order dated November 26, 2019. The plea of Mr.Singh was that the transferorder has been issued with malafide intention to take revengeagainst the petitioner who has initiated cases against Director CCRT, namely Rishi Kumar Vashist,the respondent No.2 and made complaints against him. Similar are the allegations against him for suspending the petitioner and also initiating disciplinary proceedings.

76. The allegationsof malafide are based on facts as pleaded which are required to be answeredby Rishi Kumar Vashist. For answering the allegations,it was necessary that Rishi Kumar Vashist is made a party in person in theseproceedings. Unfortunately, he has not been impleaded by the petitioner. In theabsence of Rishi Kumar Vashist being a party in person, the allegations quahim cannot be gone into. So, the impugned orders of Transfer / Suspension and Memorandum along with Articles of Charge cannot be tested / adjudicated on that ground. In this regard I may refer to the judgment of the Supreme W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 33 Court in the case of N. Banavalikar (Dr) v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 89 has held as under: -

So, the challenge to the impugned orders, on the ground of malice needs to be rejected.

77. Insofar as the plea of malice in law is concerned,the allegations primarily are that the matters with regard to pay scale and the transfer order being subjudice,the Suspension and the Memorandum along W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 34 with Articles of charge could not have been issued. The malice in law means an act done wronglyand without reasonable/probable cause. The facts as noted above do not constitute malice in law. The pendency of petitions before thisCourt is not a bar on the authority to transferthe petitioner in exigency. The suspension of the petitioner was subsequent to the transfer of the petitioner to Udaipur andas such has no bearing on the transferissue.In any case, there is no restraint order from the Court wherethe petitions are pendingnot to transfer the petitioner. Hence,the plea is unsustainable.

78. Now, comingto the plea of Mr.Singh that there is one post of Administrative Officer at New Delhi and in the absence of a post of Administrative Officer in the Centre at Udaipur, the petitioner could not have been transferred is also unsustainable in view of clear stipulation in the transferpolicy dated May 21, 2019 which reads as under: “The following broad parameters are decided for transfer of the officers / staff of CCRT from and within headquarter and its three Regional Centres:-

1. All Group ‘A’ officers Including Dy. Directors and Group '8' officers Including Field Officers, Accounts Officer, Administrative Officer etc. may be liable for transfer within any department of the Headquarter and to Regional Centres at Hyderabad, Udaipur and Guwahati on completion of a period of three (03) years at one place of posting either at the Headquarter or Regional Centre, CCRT as and when required In public interest.” W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 35

79. The aforesaid transfer policy has not been challenged by the petitioner.The transfer of the petitioner as Administrative Officer, to Udaipur is permissibleunder thepolicy. Thesame cannot be faulted.

80. That apart, the respondents have justified the transfer of the petitioner based on a communication dated November 25, 2019 received from theConsultant at theCentreat Udaipur wherein he has stated as under: “The Centre has only two regular staff - a Hindi Steno-typist who looks after administration and a Jr Accountant taking care of accounts work. The Centre is therefore functioning for the last several years with such minimal administrative support. We are currently in a hired building incurring substantial amount as rent. We need to liaise with the landlord in the upkeep of the building on a regular basis. Our new building is being constructed and the first phase is likely to be completed soon. It needs regular and systematic monitoring to ensure conformity with the tender specifications that needs a senior official conversant with administrative matters. The lack of senior admn official hampers us from even routine activities like upkeep of the building, house keeping jobs or important works like calling for tenders/quotations for catering, security, transport etc. This has resulted in W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 36 continuing with the same vendors for catering, security and transport for over three years even while the service provided by them is not very satisfactory. The tenders /quotations could not be called for until now due to inadequate administrative support. Earlier senior officials were coming from the CCRT Headquarters to help the Centre. We could initiate action for quotations for catering, security and transport this month only due to help from the CCRT, Headquarters.If we had a senior administrative staff, this could have done much earlier. In addition, the construction site is about 10 km away and we are unable to systematically supervise the construction activity due to limited staff, Once the construction activity picks up in the next few months, the bills submitted for payment need to be checked and processed for payment ensuring that they are as per the tender specifications. More importantly, once the building is complete we need to take steps to acquire furniture, fillings etc for which the Centre needs to float tenders. There is no senior administrative person at CCRT Udaipur, who can handle this important work. In view of the above, we would be grateful if a senior, experienced person conversant with administrative matters is posted to the CCRT, Udaipur asap.... Thanking you and with regards W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 37 Yours faithfully Satyanarayana”

81. It is pursuantto the aforesaid request made by the Consultant that the impugnedtransfer order was issued. The transferorder refers to the above request received from Udaipur. The request of the Consultant reveals the exigencies for posting a senior officer with background in administration at Udaipur.Thereis enough justification for the respondents to transfer the petitioner to Udaipur in administrative exigencies. The law with regard to transfer is well settled in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Siya Ram, (2004) 7 SCC 405, that the transfer unless shown to be malafide or in violation of statutory rules is not open to interference by the Court. TheSupreme Court has in paras 5 and 6 held as under:

82. It is also settledlaw that thetransfer is an incident of service (Ref: Registrar General, High Court of Madras vs. R. Perachi, (2011) 12 SCC 137). The Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Singh vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 98, has in para. 23 held as under: - W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 39 “xxxx Transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of that hierarchical superiors to make that decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments.This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.”

83. Mr. Bharat Singh has in support of his submissions relied upon the judgment in the case of Arvind Dattatraya Dhande (supra),that in view of impeachable,eloquent,testimony of performanceof duties, the transferof an officer was held to be malafide exercise of power. I have considered the judgment and thefacts as noted by the Supreme Court; the same are at variance with thefacts availablein the case in hand. I have already detailed above the exigencies for which thetransfer of the petitioner has been madeto Udaipur. The plea that the sameis because of litigation / complaints made by thepetitioner is only a figment of imagination of thepetitioner which has nobasis. The judgment hasno W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 40 applicability. The other judgments relied upon by Mr.Singh being, State of Kerala (supra), Dipankar Sengupta (supra) and Somesh Tiwari (supra) are distinguishable on facts and as such have no applicabilityto this case. I do not see any merit insofaras the petition being W.P.(C) 12674/2019 is concerned.The same is dismissed.

84. Insofar as the writ petition being W.P.(C) 4421/2020 is concerned, the challenge is to the order of Suspension and Memorandumissuedalong with Articles of Charge to the petitioner. The grounds on which the impugned order / memorandum are challenged are thefollowing:

(i) The respondent No.2 is not empowered to issue the suspension order underRule 10 of the CSS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as he is under investigation under thePrevention of Corruption Act and is required to be under suspension.

(ii) Suspension order has been passed only to deny the petitioner the right of consideration to the post of Deputy Director (Admn).

(iii) The respondentNo.2 has initiated theproceedings under the Conduct rulesafter the petitioner had filed the complaints and Court cases against the CCRT.

(iv) The CCRT being a Society registered under the Societies

85. Having noted the broad submissions made by Mr. Singh, I shall now deal with the same. Insofar as his submission that the respondent W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 41 No.2 cannot suspendthe petitioneras he is under investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, suffice to state, the petitioner has not given anydetailsof the case / FIR registered against the respondent No.2pursuant to which the investigations are being conducted against him. In any case, it is not thecase of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 is under suspension or his power as Disciplinary Authority being the appointing authority of all Group B posts, which includes the post of Administrative Officer, has been taken away. In other words, the respondent No.2 is discharging the functions of Director of CCRT and being theDisciplinaryAuthority of the petitioner is competent to suspend him. Thisplea of Mr. Singh is rejected.

86. The plea that the petitioner has been suspended to deny him the consideration to the post of DeputyDirector (Admn) is also unmerited. Merely because the petitioneris under suspension and charge sheet has been issued, shall not bar his consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Admn) except, in such an eventuality, the recommendations of the DPC shall be kept in a sealed cover which shall be opened on theculmination of the proceedings provided the charges are not proved against the petitioner.

87. The plea of Mr. Singh that theimpugned order of Suspension and Memorandum, issuing Articles of Charge are because the petitioner has filed cases and made complaints against the CCRT / respondent No.2 is concerned,the plea as made in effect is that, the respondent No.2 haswith ulterior motive,suspendedand has issued the charge sheet to the petitioner. Such a plea is unsustainable for the reasons already stated above i.e., the Director of CCRT, Rishi Kumar W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 42 Vashist has not been made a party in person to enable him to meet the allegations of the petitioner on facts that have been pleaded to allege malafide. So, the plea being unsustainable in law, cannot be considered.

88. Insofar as the plea of Mr. Singh that theRules of 1965 are not applicable in the absence of any Gazette notification issued upon declaration by thePresident is also unmerited.The CCRT is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and as such is regulated in terms of Rule 58A of the service Byelaws, whereby the Rules of 1965 have been made applicable, mutatis mutandis to the employees of CCRT. By operation of Rule 58A, the Rules of 1965 have been made applicable to the employees of CCRT includingthe petitioner herein. There is no challenge to the vires of Rule 58A of the service Byelaws by which the Rules of 1965 have been made applicable to the employees of CCRT. On the strength of the said rule,the respondent No.2 is within hisright to suspend andissue Memorandumdated July 03, 2020 to the petitionerand the same cannot be faulted.

89. I may also state here that mere suspension of an employee would not amount to cessation of service. On suspension, the employee is kept away from the office so that he does not tamperwith the evidence or influence any of thewitnesses so to be produced by the management before the Enquiry Officer.I also note,that theorder of suspension has been reviewed by the respondents, therebyextending the same, which has not been challenged.

90. Having said that thefurtherissue which arises for consideration is, can the charge sheet be quashed at this stage, when inquiry W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 43 proceedings are going on against the petitioner. The answer in this respect has to be “NO” in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28, wherein the SupremeCourt in para.14 has held as under: “The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or chargesheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.”

91. It is also settledlaw that at thechargesheet stage,the Court will not go into the correctness of thecharges. It is for the Inquiry Officer who has been appointed by the Disciplinary Authority under the rules which governs theproceedings before whom the evidence shall be led by both the parties,to determinethe correctness of the charges in his report. That apart, if any order is passed to the prejudice of the petitioner,he shall have liberty to seek such remedy as available under the Rules.

92. In view of my discussion above,I do not see any merit in this W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected matter Page 44 petition as well, both the petitions are dismissed. No costs. C.M. APPLs. 51744/2019 & 11951/2020 in W.P.(C) 12674/2019 C.M. APPLs. 15923-2020 & 33264/2020 in W.P.(C) 4421/2020 In view of the fact that I have dismissed the Writ Petitions, the present applicationsare also dismissed.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

JUNE 23, 2021