SADACHARI SINGH TOMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dtd. 2/2/2012 dismissing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3792 of 2002 filed by the appellant, as well as the subsequent order dtd. 2/11/2012 in Review Petition No. 239 of 2012, whereby the High Court declined to review its decision. By way of these impugned orders, the High Court affirmed the order dtd. 1/4/2002 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal ( "CAT ") at New Delhi in Original Application No. 1276 of 2001, which had upheld the action taken by respondent no. 2, Indian Council of Agricultural Research ( "ICAR "), vide Office Order F. No. 4-2/98-Per. III dtd. 31/1/2001, of curtailing the tenure of the appellant as Assistant Director General, Agricultural Research Information System ( "ADG?ARIS ") and reverting him to the post of Senior Scientist, Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering ( "CIAE "), Bhopal, which he held prior to his appointment as ADG?ARIS.

(2.) The relevant facts, as they emerge from the record, may be summarised briefly. The appellant joined ICAR as a Scientist on 24/8/1978. Subsequently, he rose in service to the post of Senior Scientist at CIAE, Bhopal. On the basis of a selection process conducted by the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board ( "ASRB "), the appellant applied for and was offered the post of ADG-ARIS through Office Order F. No. 2(5)/96-Per. III dtd. 7/1/1998. He accepted and was subsequently appointed to the post of ADG-ARIS w.e.f. 15/1/1998 "...for a period of five years or until further orders, whichever is earlier, " in terms of the Office Order F. No. 4(2)/93-Per. III dtd. 11/2/1998.

(3.) During his tenure as ADG-ARIS, the appellant claims to have acted as a whistleblower in relation to alleged irregularities in the award of contracts by ICAR for the procurement of computer equipment worth Rs.200.00 crores, as well as highlighting anomalies with Rs.1000.00 crores sanctioned for the National Agriculture Technology Project ( "NATP "). He states he raised multiple internal objections and made recommendations regarding the manner in which certain officials of ICAR were purportedly favouring certain private companies in the award of these contracts, and also made complaints to the Central Vigilance Commission and the Central Bureau of Investigation. He further contends that this expose led to displeasure at higher levels and triggered retaliatory action against him in the form of antedated adverse remarks in his Annual Assessment Reports ( "AARs ") and eventually, the premature curtailment of his tenure.