All India Central Ground Water Board Employees Association v. Union of India

1. Allowed subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 144/2018 & CM 602/2018 i

2. The petitioner - an association of All India Central Ground Water Board Empjloyees Association - has filed the present petition impugning an order datecj 01.12.2017 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Water Resburces, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation (respondent no.l) withdravAdng the recognition granted to the petitioner no.l association. I The impugned order has been passed as the respondents had found that the petitioner association had violated clauses (b), (e) and (g) of Rule 6 of Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993 I (hereafter '^he Rules'). 2018:DHC:8791 I

3. Respojident no. 1 found that the petitioner had violated Rule 6(b) of the said Rulbs as the representations submitted by the petitioner espoused the cause of individual government servants, which in substance were relatingto personaland medical grounds ofindividual officers. I

4. Mr Vjenkatraman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the same and states that the petitioner had simply forwarded the representations received from its members and the same ought not to be considered as representations of the petitioner. He further states that no objections in this regard were raised by the respondents in the past and if any objections were raised, the petitioner would have discontinued this practice. |

5. The above contention is not persuasive. The entire purpose of the petitioner forwarding any representation of its members would be to imply that the petitioner supports such representation and cannot be construed in any other manner except to indicate that the petitioner is espousing the cause i therein.

6. Respondent no.l also found that the petitioner had not forwarded the relevant documents. In particular, the petitioner had not forwarded (a) list of I members not verified by the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officers I (DDOs); (j?) complete audited statement for the year 2016-17 verified by the Chief Auditor; and (c) the accounts of the 18 regional, 17 divisional and 17 State units in India, including a detailed breakup of expenditure for each year, details of amounts advanced to individual by each office etc. Further, the petitioner had also not submitted the requisite information before 1st ± Julyeachyearas required. i

7. Mr V'eiilaitraman states that the petitioner is a large orgiinizatiori and there have been some delays in submission of some documents, however, the petitioner would submit all necessary documents to respondent no.l and, in iliture, v/ould also comply with the requirement of submitting the necessary documeiits before 1stJulyeach year.

8. The above contention, plainly, indicates that respondent no.l's finding that certain documents were not provided as required to, is not flawed., •!., ' I ' ' '

9 Respondent ho.[1] further found that the petitioner had violated Rule 6(g) of the ?100/- and Rules as it had i]'ic.vea;Wd the annuEil subscription Irom ?dO/- to tlien to 1150/- and finally to ?5()0/- without the pennission ofthe Goveiinri.ent.

10. Mr S/'enicat?;aifian submits "that the increase of ^60/- to ?100/- was mMe in the year 2(H)2 and di;e infoiination had been given to respondent no.l. Although, a foimal approval was not obtained but the Government did not. at:an}| stage,.raise objections,i:o die same. The api^iual.accounts had also. been sabrnittpd, which rerlected tlie nicreased annual subscription. He states that a') fer as the increa-se vo ?500/- is concerned, the same has not been effected.

11. It i& seen iiom thepetitipn that there is no specificgroundchallenging I the finding iliat as i;>er.the. documents submitted by the petitioner, the annual •subscriptipui. was indre^sed to ^^'500/-. Further, admittedly, mere is no h

12. In vie^y of the above, this Court is not persuaded to accept that any interference in the impugned order is warranted. Hov^ever, it is clear that the petitioner,has certain further explanations, which the petitioner ought to have furnished to respondent no.l at the material time. In the circumstances, i the Court ccinsiders it apposite to permit the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the Central Government to re-consider its decision to withdraw the recognition. If such representation, along with all necessary documents, is made within a period of two weeks, respondent no.l shall I consider the representation and pass an appropriate order thereon within a period ofei^t weeks thereafter.

13. It is;clarified that the respondents shall consider the petitioner's representation uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court in this order. ' I

14. The Ipetition alongwith the application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. VIBHUBAKHRU,J JANUARY 08,2018 SRwt