Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1914 (DEL)

Genco Officers Association v. Union of India

2014-07-16

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

body2014
Judgment : Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. (Oral) 1. This writ petition has been filed on the ground that no action was being taken by the respondents and particularly the respondent No. 3 pursuant to the complaint dated 03.10.2012 with regard to certain alleged activities in Pragati Power Corporation Limited and Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited (PPCL and IPGCL). 2. Initially, a Division Bench of this Court had directed issuance of notice only to respondent No.3 (Central Vigilance Commission). Thereafter, all the respondents were directed to file their counter-affidavits. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is respondent No.4. They have filed their counter-affidavit which is not yet on record. But, a copy of the same has been handed over to us and which we take on record. In the said counter-affidavit, they have stated that representations of the petitioner association had been examined by the CBI and had been forwarded to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi for necessary action at their end, after approval of the competent authority as, according to the CBI, prima facie, procedural irregularities in the selection procedure by the senior officials of the PPLC had been indicated. 3. The counter-affidavit filed by the CBI further reveals that the complaint referred to above is not of such an extraordinary and exceptional nature, wherein inter-state or international investigation is required whereby an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation would be necessary. The learned counsel for the CBI also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights: (2010) 3 SCC 571 , wherein the Supreme Court has observed that it is only in exceptional circumstances that directions for CBI investigation should be given by the High Courts. 4. In view of the fact that the matter is essentially a service related matter and it is not of an exceptional nature where investigation by the CBI would be necessary, we refrain from giving directions to the CBI to carry out further investigations in this matter and thereby accept the request made by the CBI. 5. Insofar as the Central Vigilance Commission is concerned, we have heard Mr Sinha, who appeared on behalf of the said Commission and have gone through the counter-affidavit filed by them. 5. Insofar as the Central Vigilance Commission is concerned, we have heard Mr Sinha, who appeared on behalf of the said Commission and have gone through the counter-affidavit filed by them. We have also gone through the two OMs dated 08.04.2013 and 10.07.2013, which are to be found at pages 94 and 95 of the paper book. The OM dated 08.04.2013 categorically noted the view of the Commission in the following terms:- “4. In view of the above, the Commission in disagreement with the proposal of the DA, would advice initiation of major penalty proceedings against S/Sh. RR Sinha, GM(HR), RK Kapoor, then DGM(i/c) (HR) and G Sri Kumar, DM (HR) Rectt. for their complicity in the matter after framing charges to reflect lapse of respective officials with respect to their role and responsibility.” The said OM was addressed both to IPGCL and PPCL and was marked to the CVO who, apparently, was common for both the organizations. When reconsideration of the CVC recommendation was requested by IPGCL, the CVC reiterated its earlier stand by virtue of the OM dated 10.07.2013 in the following manner:- “3. In view of the above, the Commission would reiterate its earlier advice of major penalty proceedings against S/Sh. RR Sinha, GM (HR), RK Kapoor, then DGM (i/c) HR and G Sri Kumar, DM (HR) Rectt., and, CVO is also advised to seek stage I advice of the Commission in respect of other officials including CMD, who were involved in processing the case. 4. In case of CMD and board level officials, view of the concerned ministry may be obtained before seeking advice of the Commission.” 6. Thereafter, IPGCL and PPCL, in furtherance to the advice received from the CVC, placed the matter before the Disciplinary Authority who, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, was of the view that a case for major penalty against R. R. Sinha, GM (HR) was not made out at all. Thereafter, a censure was imposed on the said Mr R. R. Sinha. Insofar as the other two officials are concerned, however, charge-sheets have been issued to them in respect of major penalties and the inquiries have commenced. 7. Thereafter, a censure was imposed on the said Mr R. R. Sinha. Insofar as the other two officials are concerned, however, charge-sheets have been issued to them in respect of major penalties and the inquiries have commenced. 7. In view of the fact that action has been taken pursuant to the complaint dated 03.10.2012 and that with regard to the remaining two officials, major penalty proceedings are in progress, no further directions are necessary in this writ petition and the same stands disposed of.