D.R. Sarin vs National Seeds Corporation Limited

Hima Kohli, J.—The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for setting aside/quashing the Note and Resolution passed on 1.9.2014 in the 257th meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1/National Seeds Corporation and the resultant proceedings contemplated therein. Further, the petitioner seeks issuance of directions to the respondent No. 3/CVC to decide his representation dated 3.9.2014 and to initiate action against the respondent No. 1/Corporation and the respondent No. 2/CMD of the Corporation for failing to take action on the investigation report dated 17.2.2014 prepared and forwarded by the petitioner in respect of the irregularities in the sale of groundnut seeds and misappropriation of government subsidies by the officials of the Corporation.

With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

Briefly adverting to the facts of the case, as culled out from the petition, the petitioner was appointed as a General Manager(Administration) in the respondent No. 1/Corporation on 30.4.2009. On 30.5.2012, the petitioner was appointed as a part-time Chief Vigilance Officer in the respondent No. 1/Corporation. On 19.2.2014, the petitioner was divested from functioning as the Chief Vigilance Officer of the respondent No. 1/Corporation and he was transferred to the Production Department. In the meantime, the petitioner had applied for being appointed to the post of Chairman and Managing Director of a Public Sector Undertaking, namely Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India. On 21.3.2014, the Public Enterprises Selection Board(PESB) recommended the petitioner''s name for selection to the subject post and vide letter dated 3.4.2014, the competent authority appointed him as the Chairman and Managing Director of the aforesaid PSU w.e.f. 1.10.2014. On 1.7.2014, a separate communication was sent to the respondent No. 4/Ministry of Agriculture vide letter dated 1.7.2014, requesting it to relieve the petitioner to enable him to taken up his new assignment.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that in the meantime, the respondent No. 2/CMD of the Corporation got an Agenda Note prepared for the 257th Board Meeting dated 1.9.2014, resolving inter alia to institute a full-fledged inquiry with regard to creation/upgradation of five posts of General Managers from E6 to E7 level and pending the said inquiry, declining to relieve the petitioner from the service of the respondent No. 1/Corporation and further resolving to initiate appropriate action for instituting disciplinary proceedings against him.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the respondents No. 1 & 2, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No. 3/CVC on 3.9.2014, as also to the respondent No. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents No. 1 & 2 are trying to victimise him by declining to relieve him from his current position so as to enable him to join the other PSU as the CMD.

The present petition was listed for admission on 24.9.2014. On the said date, as none was present on behalf of the respondent No. 3/CVC, Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate who was present in court, was requested to enter appearance on behalf of the said respondent and at his request, the matter was renotified for 26.9.2014. On 26.9.2014, after hearing the counsels for the parties at some length, a detailed order was passed. Just to recapitulate the proceedings held on the aforesaid date, it may be noted that on the said date, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/CVC had submitted that it had received cross- complaints from the petitioner and the respondents No. 1 & 2 and both of them were forwarded to the concerned Administrative Ministry, namely, Ministry of Agriculture for their response. In view of the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture was considered a necessary and proper party in the present proceedings and it had not been impleaded as a respondent, leave was granted to the petitioner to implead the said Ministry as respondent No. 4. At the same time, Ms.H.Hnunpoi, Advocate, a panel lawyer for the Union of India, who was present in court, was requested to enter appearance on behalf of the said Ministry and she was directed to ensure that the CVC receives a response from the Ministry within two weeks, for it to take a view in the matter. Simultaneously, respondent No. 3/CVC was directed to file a brief affidavit in the light of the response that would be received by it from the Ministry.

On the aforesaid date, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the Ministry of Agriculture had already called upon the respondent No. 1/Corporation to complete the inquiry against the petitioner by 30.9.2014. As he submitted that there was an urgency in the matter since the petitioner was required to join as CMD of another PSU on 1.10.2014, it was enquired from the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 as to whether they had taken any decision on the aspect of relieving the petitioner, in terms of the order dated 1.7.2014, issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

Mr.Ramji Srinivasan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1/Corporation had stated that in its meeting held on 1.9.2014, the Board of Directors had resolved to institute a full-fledged inquiry with regard to creation/upgradation of five posts of General Managers from E6 to E7 level and pending the said inquiry, it was decided that the petitioner would not be relieved from the services of the Corporation. Further, it was resolved to apprise the Ministry of Agriculture about the circumstances leading to initiation of the inquiry. It was however not denied by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/Corporation that the Ministry had addressed a letter dated 25.9.2014 to the respondent No. 2, advising the Corporation to complete the inquiry against the petitioner, in terms of its letter dated 2.9.2014, by 30.9.2014 and in case a decision is taken to delay his relieving or to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him, then the Corporation was asked to consult the respondent No. 3/CVC in that regard. A copy of the letter dated 25.9.2014 handed over by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

In view of the contents of the letter dated 25.9.2014 addressed by the Ministry of Agriculture to the respondent No. 1/Corporation, it was directed that in the event, the respondent No. 1/Corporation takes a decision not to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, then he should be relieved by 30.9.2014. With the aforesaid directions, the matter was posted for 29.10.2014, to await the affidavit of the respondent No. 3/CVC.

Today, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 states that the petitioner has been relieved by the respondent No. 1/Corporation w.e.f. 30.9.2014. As for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, it is submitted that the respondent No. 1/Corporation has referred the matter through proper channel, to the respondent No. 3/CVC and the first stage advice is awaited by the respondent No. 1/Corporation.

On the last date of hearing, since learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/CVC had stated on instructions that the Administrative Ministry, namely, the Ministry of Agriculture is seized of the cross complaints submitted by the petitioner and the respondent No. 1/Corporation and a response was awaited from the said Ministry, the respondent No. 4/Ministry was directed to ensure that the information sought by the CVC should be forwarded to it within two weeks.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4/Ministry of Agriculture informs the court today that the Ministry has not received any queries from the CVC and therefore, the question of replying thereto does not arise.

Mr.Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/CVC confirms the fact that the respondent No. 1/Corporation has approached the CVC for obtaining first stage advice and submits that necessary action shall be taken by the CVC in that regard expeditiously.

Mr.Singla, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that a detailed representation against the impugned action of the respondents No. 1 & 2 has already been submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No. 4/Ministry of Agriculture. Though he draws the attention of the court to a representation dated 3.9.2014 addressed by the petitioner to the respondent No. 3/CVC, he is unable to point out any document to substantiate his submission that a complaint on the same lines was submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No. 4/Ministry of Agriculture.

The petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Administrative Ministry, i.e., Ministry of Agriculture with a complaint against the respondents No. 1 & 2. As and when the petitioner submits a complaint to the respondent No. 4/Ministry of Agriculture in line with his representation dated 3.9.2014 already pending at the end of the respondent No. 3/CVC, respondent No. 4/Ministry of Agriculture shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision thereon in a time bound manner, in accordance with law. Thereafter, the said decision shall be communicated in writing to the petitioner as expeditiously as is possible, and preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

Coming to the second relief sought by the petitioner which is for issuance of directions to the respondent No. 3/CVC to decide his representation dated 3.9.2014(Annexure I) and take action against the respondents No. 1 & 2, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/CVC assures the court that the CVC shall take steps to obtain a response not only from the respondent No. 4/Ministry of Agriculture, being the Administrative Ministry, but also from and the respondents No. 1 & 2/Corporation, particularly since the respondent No. 1 has approached it for seeking the first stage advice for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3/CVC shall communicate its decision to the respondent No. 4/Ministry of Agriculture, preferably within eight weeks. Respondents No. 1 & 2 and the respondent No. 4/Ministry of Agriculture are directed to ensure that they take expeditious steps to furnish all the relevant information to the CVC as desired by it.

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the action/inaction on the part of the respondents, he shall be entitled to seek his legal remedies in accordance with law.

The petition is disposed of, along with pending application.