Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of
JUDGMENT
SHRI K.L. MEENA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Shankar Raju, Mr. Shiv Prakash Pandey & Ms. Sharmistha Chaudhary, Advocates.
Through Ms. Anjana Gossain, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr. Anshuman, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPLs. 39713 & 39714/2019 (exemptions)
1. Exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Applications stand disposed of.
3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
4. Counsel for the respondents enters appearance on an advance copy.
5. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is set down for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2019:DHC:4349-DB
6. The necessary facts required to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an Air Worthiness Officer in the Civil Aviation Department in August, 1994. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Director of Air Safety in the year 2010. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred from Delhi Region to Mumbai (Western Region) as Deputy Director, Air Safety. As required under the norms of Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), since the petitioner’s son intended to learn flying, the petitioner vide a letter dated 11.07.2014, intimated that his son was intending to learn flying from Pioneer Flying Academy, Aligarh (U.P.) and that the flying club would come under his jurisdiction.
7. Subsequently, he informed DGCA vide communication dated 03.11.2014, that his son had not been pursuing flying lessons from Pioneer Flying Academy, and had instead joined Nagpur Flying Club, which was a State Government Flying Club. In the said communication, the petitioner clearly stated that he has no official dealing with the club.
8. Since the DGCA found the information provided by the petitioner to be incomplete and vague, and no reasons thereto assigned for switching of training academies, the details as to how the flying training was being financed were sought from the petitioner, vide DGCA communication dated 31.12.2014.
9. Subsequently, the petitioner vide his communication dated 28.02.2016 further intimated that since Nagpur Flying Club was non-operational, his son had decided to join the Madhya Pradesh Flying Club, Bhopal. In his communication, he failed to mention that the said club fell under his jurisdiction i.e. the Mumbai office. Whereas, in his previous letter dated 03.11.2014, the petitioner had clearly mentioned that he had no official dealings with Nagpur Flying Club.
10. The petitioner, informed vide his communication dated 03.06.2016, that his son had completed the flying training and obtained CPL from DGCA on 02.06.2016. He further informed vide communication dated 15.06.2016 that his son had joined the Madhya Pradesh Flying Club, Bhopal for Multi Engine Training.
11. During the period when the petitioner’s son had joined the Madhya Pradesh Flying Club, Bhopal for Multi Engine Training, the petitioner was posted in the Western Region, DGCA as Deputy Director (Air Safety) and as per the work allocation order dated 30.03.2016, the work of Madhya Pradesh Flying Club, Bhopal was under his jurisdiction from 30.03.2016 to 20.06.2016.
12. Accordingly, the petitioner vide memoranda dated 30.10.2018 and 19.11.2018, was requested to clarify his position with regard to allocation and continuance of holding of charge of the work of Madhya Pradesh Flying Club, Bhopal during the training of his son in that institute.
13. The statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior in support of Article of Charges enclosed alongwith the memorandum dated 26.04.2019 against the petitioner clearly state that the communication sent by the petitioner dated 08.11.2018, 22.11.2018 as well as the correspondence dated 22.11.2017 received from O/o DDG (WR), Mumbai were examined and it was observed that the petitioner was looking after the work of Madhya Pradesh Flying Club relating to Air Safety and was in a position to influence the admission process of his son, which was under his jurisdiction during the said period of time. It was observed that it was a clear case of conflict of interest and the petitioner deliberately concealed vital information to derive personal benefit in this case.
14. The memorandum dated 26.04.2019 issued by Director General, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India to the petitioner states that that an inquiry would be held against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 due to the alleged violation of Rules 4(1) and 4(3) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 alleging that the petitioner’s son has undergone training at the Madhya Pradesh Flying Club during the period when the petitioner had jurisdiction over the club and that the training led to employment of his son.
15. Rules 4(1) and 4(3) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 are reproduced hereinunder:
16. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by which the O.A. No.2522/2019 filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered their rival submissions. The law is well settled on the issue of quashing of a charge-memo issued to a delinquent employee. A charge-sheet/ chargememo is not liable to be quashed during the pendency of the departmental enquiry of the delinquent employee. In case the said employee has some grievance in respect of the charge-sheet, he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority.
18. It is well-settled that as the issuance of a charge-sheet does not constitute a cause of action, a writ petition, ordinarily, does not lie against it. The same does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party, unless the same has been issued by an authority, which does not have the competence or the jurisdiction to do so.
19. The Supreme Court in the case of Secretary Ministry of Defence & others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565 has held as under:
20. In the case of State of Orissa and another Vs. Sangram Keshari Misra and another, (2010) 13 SCC 311, the Supreme Court held as under:
21. Applying the law to the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal which requires interference in these proceedings.
22. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is devoid of any merit. The same is dismissed accordingly. CM APPL. 39712/2019 (stay)
23. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, the application stands dismissed. G.S. SISTANI, J ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J SEPTEMBER 04, 2019 //