Vinod Kumar (Chief Water Analyst) vs Delhi Jal Board

The applicant is working as Chief Water Analyst in Delhi Jal Board. He was issued a charge memo dated 21.06.2017 wherein it was alleged that according to a TV news clipping dated 06.01.2014, he was found demanding and accepting a sum of Rs.2000/- from an unknown person, to give favourable report in respect of a water sample. The list of documents, relied upon and the list of witnesses proposed to be examined in the inquiry, were appended. The applicant was also placed under suspension, but later on reinstated.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 07.02.2019 with a request to furnish information or documents, on several aspects, and ultimately to drop the disciplinary proceedings, in view of the contents of examination report furnished by a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) on

05.2018. Through a reply dated 11.04.2019, he was informed that the disciplinary authority has taken a decision to continue the proceedings. The said communication and the charge memo are challenged in this O.A.

We heard Mr. Malaya Chand, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Rohit Sehrawat for Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for respondents, at the stage of admission.

The only charge framed against the applicant reads as under:-

"Article: 1

That Shri Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Sukhbir Singh while working as CWA (North) at Haiderpur Water Works on 06.01.2014 had demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/- from one unknown person for giving report of water sample test in his favour for use of water in building construction works. The said person was a decoy customer/reporter of TV Today Network Ltd. who had conducted sting operation on the said transaction. It was subsequently broadcasted on Aaj Tak TV News Channel on 06.01.2014 at about 09.00 p.m. The news report was brought to the notice of higher authorities by Director (T&QC) on 06.01.2014; consequently Shri Vinod Kumar was placed under suspension and departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Further, FIR was registered in the ACB, GNCTD for said offence. More so, it is seen in the CD of sting operation that the alleged official had taken such bribe.

The above act of Shri Vinod Kumar, CWA, amounts to gross misconduct on his part, as he failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Govt. Servant. He has, thereby, contravened Rule 3 (1) (i) (ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as amended from time to time and made applicable to the employees of DJB."

From this, it is evident that the sole basis for framing the charge is the telecast, made by a private agency on 06.01.2014. An FIR is said to have been registered in relation to this and the criminal case is pending. The applicant obtained the forensic examination report from a private agency. According to that, there are certain unnatural aspects about the CD, which contained the alleged telecast. It is in this context, that the applicant made a request to the Disciplinary Authority, to drop the proceedings. Through the impugned memorandum, the disciplinary authority refused to drop the disciplinary proceedings.

It is no doubt true, that many of the documents relied upon by the respondents are not being made available and a substantial information sought by the applicant is also not forthcoming. Even the respondents are helpless, inasmuch the telecast was made by a private agency and they did not have any access or control over that. We would have certainly set aside the impugned order dated 11.04.2019 and required the disciplinary authority to examine the matter in the context of the non-availability of substantial information, but for the fact that a criminal case is pending against the applicant. In matters of this nature, the disciplinary proceedings are kept on hold till the criminal case is decided. Since the applicant is already reinstated, he is not subjected to any serious hardship, as of now.

We, therefore, dispose of this O.A. directing that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant shall be kept on hold, till the criminal case instituted against the applicant, in relation to the same episode, is decided.

There shall be no order as to costs.