High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 04 DEL CK 0234

N K WADHWA; A K RAJPUT vs CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE HOUSING ORGANISATION & ANR

Delhi High Court · Decided on 24 April 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
SUNIL GAUR
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
W.P.(C) 6437 of 2017,W.P.(C) 6438 of 2017,W.P.(C) 6439 of 2017,

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 369 words

SUNIL GAUR ,J.

1.In the above-captioned three petitions, vide impugned Memorandums of 22nd February, 2010 and 8th March, 2010, departmental proceedings stood

initiated against petitioners. In the case of petitioner-N K Wadhwa [in W.P.(C) 6437/2017], Inquiry Report of 10th February, 2015 indicts him of the

charges framed against him, whereas Inquiry Report of 27th March, 2015 also indicts petitioner-N K Wadhwa [in W.P.(C) 6438/2017] and holds him

guilty in respect of one of the charges and clarifies that remaining four charges stand partly proved. In the case of petitioner-A.K. Rajput [in W.P.(C)

6439/2017], Inquiry Report of 12th March, 2015 indicts him with clarification that out of five charges framed against him, three charges have been

proved whereas remaining two charges have been partly proved. When the charges were levelled against petitioner-N.K. Wadhwa [in W.P.(C)

6437/2017], he was functioning as Officiating Director (Finance) and while petitioner-N.K. Wadhwa [in W.P.(C) 6438/2017] was working as Director

(Administration), he was charged with dereliction of duty. Although the Inquiry Report was received in the year 2015, but till date, Disciplinary

Authority has not decided as to whether any action is to be taken against petitioners, as they have already retired.Â

2.During the course of hearing, petitioners’ counsel had drawn attention of this Court to Office Memorandums of 31st January, 2018 and 23rd

April, 2018 to indicate that clearance of Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘CVC’) is awaited.Â

3.Upon hearing and on perusal of material on record, it is deemed appropriate to call upon CVC to decide within four weeks from today whether to

give clearance or not, in order to facilitate passing of appropriate orders by the Disciplinary Authority. After receiving response from CVC, the

Disciplinary Authority of respondent shall pass appropriate orders in light of the Inquiry Reports received, within a period of six weeks and convey its

fate to petitioners within a week thereafter, so that release of retiral benefits to petitioners can be undertaken with expedition, if such an eventuality

arises.Â

4.CVC be apprised of this order forthwith to ensure its compliance.Â

5.With aforesaid directions, the above-captioned petitions and the applications are disposed of. Â

Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties. Â