Sanjay Prasad v. UOI and Ors

SANJIV KHANNA, J. sv

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 6th September, 2011 % Judgment pronounced on: 19th September, 2011 + WP(C) No.3667/2011 SANJAY PRASAD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Shankar Raju, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. for R-1. Mr.R.V.Sinha with Ms.Sangita Rai, Advs. for R-2 to 5. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ By this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legal pregnability of the order dated 2.2.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short "the tribunal") in O.A. No.439/2011 whereby the tribunal has declined to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and the stamp of approval given to it by the appellate authority. 2. The facts, in a nut shell, are that the petitioner was working as a Daftari in the Income Tax Department and was posted in the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII, ITO, New Delhi. A prosecution was launched against him for offences punishable under Sections 419/467/468/471/120-B/511 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC"). During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner had preferred a criminal revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge assailing the order framing charge under Section 419 of the IPC. During the pendency of the revision, the criminal trial proceeded with the other charges. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 22.2.2006, quashed the charge framed under Section 419 of the IPC on the ground that no offence under Section 419 of the IPC had been disclosed against the revisionist. Despite the said order, the petitioner was convicted for offences under Section 419 read with Section 120-B of the IPC along with the offences under Sections 511 and 471 of the IPC. Being grieved by the said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate Court, while affirming the conviction, extended him the benefit under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the CrPC"). Eventually, he executed a bond and was released on probation of good conduct. 3. After the petitioner was released on probation of good conduct, he submitted a representation on 27.8.2007 to revoke his order of suspension and to reinstate him. The authorities, instead of considering his representation, decided to proceed against him and, accordingly, issued a memorandum on 3.10.2007 and thereafter, vide notice dated 23.11.2007, asked him to submit a representation on the proposed penalty of removing him from service. 4. Being dissatisfied with the said notice, the petitioner preferred O.A. 86/2008 which was disposed of on 28.5.2008 with the direction to the competent authority that in the event the applicant prefers a representation against the memorandum dated 3.10.2007, it should be decided by passing a reasoned order within one month. As the factual narration would further uncurtain, the petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice dated 9.6.2008. The disciplinary authority, on consideration of the fact that the petitioner had been convicted on criminal charges, found that the petitioner was unfit to be retained in service. Being of this view, the punishment of removal was imposed on him. 5. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal and as there was delay in disposal of the appeal, he preferred O.A. No.970/2010 wherein the tribunal directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal by passing a cogent and germane order within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, the appellate authority passed an order on 8.9.2010 affirmin