Ravideep Singh Chahar vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

The applicant, a member of the 2000 batch of Puducherry Civil Services, was appointed as Director (Ministerial) in the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on deputation in 2016 and was subsequently given the additional charge of Director (Commercial Estate) in 2019. The present Original Application challenges the charge memorandum dated 13.10.2023 and the consequential disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in connection with the alternative allotment of Shop No. 1, CSC, Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. The applicant also seeks consequential consideration of his claim for induction into the IAS.

The dispute relates to an alternative shop allotted to Shri S.P. Khosla, who had originally been allotted Shop No. 11, CSC-5, Sector-7, Rohini, in 1989 but was not given possession thereof. Following his representations, an alternative shop was approved by the competent authority in 2017 pursuant to a computerized mini-draw held on 01.06.2017. The cost of the additional area was calculated by the Finance Wing of the DDA. The applicant dealt with the matter in 2019, when the file was placed before him for issuance of the consequential demand-cum-allotment letter.

A show-cause notice dated 10.02.2020 was issued to the applicant alleging irregularities in the allotment and determination of the cost. The applicant submitted his explanation in March 2020. He was repatriated to the Government of Puducherry vide order dated 28.07.2020. Subsequently, the charge memorandum dated 13.10.2023 was issued against him in relation to the same transaction. The applicant submitted his detailed defence on 03.05.2024, but the disciplinary proceedings continued.

In the meantime, a criminal case arising from the same transaction was investigated by the CBI. The CBI filed a closure report, which was accepted by the learned Special Judge, CBI, vide order dated 08.04.2022. The applicant relies upon the findings recorded therein concerning the computerized mini-draw, the alternative allotment and the absence of material establishing that undue advantage had been extended to the allottee.

Counsel for the applicant contends that the impugned charge memorandum is vitiated by unexplained delay, procedural irregularities and non-application of mind. According to him, the alternative allotment had already been approved by the competent authority and the costing had been undertaken by the Finance Wing before he dealt with the file. He submits that his role was limited to the consequential issuance of the demand-cum-allotment letter and that no personal gain or mala fide intention has been attributed to him.

Counsel for the applicant further contends that, following his repatriation, the disciplinary matter was required to be dealt with in accordance with the applicable rules and Clause 5.6 of the CVC Manual. He questions the manner in which approval for disciplinary action and the CVC advice were obtained and submits that the prescribed procedure was not duly followed.

Counsel for the applicant also relies upon the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, and the subsequent departmental developments, including the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance Officer, Government of Puducherry, for dropping the charges. He submits that these relevant developments were not duly considered while maintaining the disciplinary proceedings.

It is further submitted that the pendency of the proceedings adversely affected the applicant's career. Although he was assessed as “Very Good” by the Selection Committee for the Select List Year 2024 for induction into the IAS, his inclusion remained provisional owing to the absence of the requisite Integrity Certificate/Vigilance Clearance. The applicant accordingly submits that continuation of the proceedings has caused serious and demonstrable prejudice.

Counsel for the applicant has filed the counter affidavit and submitted that the Government of Puducherry submits that it is the competent disciplinary authority and that the proceedings were initiated in accordance with the applicable rules. It is contended that the applicant was required to examine the objections raised by the Financial Advisor, verify the relevant financial calculations and ensure that the requisite approval and policy requirements were complied with before issuance of the demand-cum-allotment letter.

Counsel for the respondents further submit that acceptance of the CBI closure report does not, by itself, bar departmental proceedings, since criminal and disciplinary proceedings operate in distinct fields and are governed by different standards of proof. Reliance has also been placed upon the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 3377/2022 and 2508/2023 concerning other officials involved in the same transaction.

The respondents contend that the delay is explained by the consideration of the matter by different authorities, including the DDA, the Government of Puducherry and the CVC. They maintain that the applicant's explanation was considered and that the appointment of the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer was part of the regular disciplinary process.

The DoP&T and UPSC submit that the applicant's provisional inclusion in the Select List was governed by the applicable Promotion Regulations and that the requisite Integrity Certificate was to be furnished by the concerned authority. They maintain that the applicant's induction into the IAS could not be finalised in the absence of the prescribed requirements. The DDA also denies any illegality in the disciplinary action and submits that the applicant failed to adequately address the objections concerning the costing and approval of the demand-cum-allotment letter.

We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents placed on record.

Ordinarily, this Tribunal does not interfere with a charge memorandum at the threshold, particularly where the allegations require examination in departmental proceedings. However, judicial interference may be warranted where the proceedings are shown to suffer from serious procedural infirmities, unexplained delay or circumstances demonstrating that their continuation would cause undue prejudice.

In the present case, the alternative allotment had been approved by the competent authority in 2017, following a computerized mini-draw conducted on 01.06.2017. The costing exercise had also been undertaken by the Finance Wing. The applicant came into the matter subsequently, in 2019, and his role principally concerned the issuance of the consequential demand-cum-allotment letter. The respondents allege that he was nevertheless required to examine the objections raised by the Financial Advisor and ensure compliance with the applicable procedure. However, his role has to be considered in the context of the decisions already taken by the competent authorities and the material available on record.

The dispute regarding the applicable rate involved the interpretation of DDA circulars and policy instructions. We do not consider it necessary to adjudicate upon the correctness of the competing interpretations in the present proceedings. It is, however, relevant that the issue arose in the context of an administrative decision and that the material before us does not establish any allegation of personal gain on the part of the applicant.

The order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, accepting the closure report, is also a relevant circumstance. We are conscious that acceptance of a closure report does not automatically extinguish the employer's right to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Nevertheless, the findings recorded by the criminal Court concerning the allotment process and the absence of material establishing undue advantage cannot be ignored while assessing the cumulative circumstances of the present case.

We further find that the applicant's challenge to the CVC advice raises material concerns regarding compliance with the prescribed procedure. The First Stage Advice of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is unsustainable in view of the procedural infirmities pointed out by the applicant and borne out from the material placed on record. The Second Stage Advice also suffers from non-application of mind, as the applicant's defence, the relevant material on record, the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, accepting the closure report, and the subsequent recommendation of the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO), Government of Puducherry, for dropping the charges were not duly considered. These circumstances assume significance because the decision to continue disciplinary proceedings ought to be based upon due consideration of the relevant facts and material and in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the applicable rules and instructions.

In this context, the principle laid down in Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) 1 Ch D 426, and subsequently recognised by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253, is relevant. The said principle was reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358, and applied in Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC 422. The settled principle emerging from these decisions is that where the law prescribes a particular manner for performing an act, the act must ordinarily be performed in that manner, and other modes of performance cannot be substituted where the prescribed procedure is mandatory. The principle, however, has to be applied having regard to the nature of the requirement, the governing statutory framework and the consequences of non-compliance. In the present case, the relevance of this principle lies in the obligation of the authorities to adhere to the procedure governing the consideration of vigilance advice and disciplinary action. Where such procedure prescribes mandatory safeguards, their observance cannot be treated as a mere formality. The failure to duly consider material circumstances relevant to the applicant's defence, coupled with the procedural infirmities noticed in the CVC advice, therefore, assumes significance in assessing the legality of the continued disciplinary proceedings. We accordingly find that the procedural objections raised by the applicant cannot be brushed aside as inconsequential.

The chronology also assumes significance. The applicant was repatriated to his parent department in July 2020, whereas the charge memorandum was issued on 13.10.2023. He submitted his detailed defence on 03.05.2024, yet the proceedings continued for a considerable period thereafter. The respondents have referred to the involvement of various authorities in processing the matter; however, the cumulative period of delay and the circumstances in which the proceedings continued must also be taken into account.

The prejudice suffered by the applicant is not merely apprehended. His inclusion in the Select List for induction into the IAS for the year 2024 remained provisional owing to the pending disciplinary proceedings and the non-availability of the requisite Integrity Certificate/Vigilance Clearance. Consequently, the proceedings had a tangible impact on his career. Although the authorities were required to act in accordance with the applicable Promotion Regulations, the resulting prejudice is a relevant consideration in determining whether the disciplinary proceedings should be permitted to continue in the circumstances of this case.

We have also considered the respondents' submission that criminal and departmental proceedings are distinct and that the former do not automatically bar the latter. The present decision does not rest merely upon acceptance of the CBI closure report. It rests upon the cumulative effect of the circumstances, including the applicant's limited and consequential role, the prior approval of the alternative allotment, the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge, the procedural infirmities in the CVC advice, the prolonged continuation of the disciplinary proceedings and the demonstrable prejudice to the applicant's career.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan and State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal has recognised that unexplained delay, particularly when accompanied by prejudice to the employee, may justify judicial interference. The question must be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case.

In the present matter, the applicant has remained under the cloud of disciplinary proceedings for several years in relation to an administrative transaction originating in 2017. Having regard to the entire chronology, the procedural infirmities noticed above and the adverse impact on his career, we are of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings would cause undue prejudice and cannot be sustained. We clarify that we are not undertaking a detailed adjudication upon each Article of Charge or recording a finding on every disputed aspect of the underlying transaction.

Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The charge memorandum dated 13.10.2023 and all consequential disciplinary proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and set aside. The respondents shall reconsider the applicant's claim for Vigilance Clearance/Integrity Certificate in accordance with law, keeping in view the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings.

The applicant's claim for consequential consideration for induction into the IAS shall also be dealt with by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and regulations. Such consideration shall be subject to fulfilment of all other prescribed requirements and shall not be construed as a direction for appointment dehors the applicable rules.

Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.