LAWS(DLH)-2001-9-45

S C CHADHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On September 05, 2001
S.C.CHADHA Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner wants to wriggle out of the disciplinary action- initiated against him on the plea that it was hit by inordinate delay. The question that arise is whether such delay would kill the action itself.

(2.) all started with an anonymous complaint dated 12.7.1993 addressed to the Minister concerned charging petitioner, a Supdt.Engineer (Civil) in Telecom Department of some irregularities allegedly committed by him in awarding a contract way back in 1991 for work of vertical extension of telephone exchange building at Solan to one M/s.Himachal Construction Company. This complaint was referred to his Chief Engineer twice but he found no substance in it. ' However, the same was pursued culminating in Memorandum dated 24.2.2000 ordering initiation of departmental proceedings against petitioner charging him of commission of irregularities in awarding the contract. He challenged this in OA No.882/2000 before the CAT contending that inordinate delay committed by respondents in initiating action against him had vitiated the action and that otherwise also anonymous complaint made to the Minister was not cognizable under CVC circular No. No.3(V)/99/2 dated 26.9.99. Tribunal over-ruled his plea and dismissed his petition by impugned order dated 6.7.2000. He has now filed this petition to assail the Tribunal order and his star contention is that respondents had taken as good as 10 years to initiate action against him which had become unsustainable on account of inordinate delay. Even otherwise also, he could not be proceeded against,, on the basis of anonymous complaint which was not cognizable under the aforesaid CVC circular.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner Mr.Tripathi placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Sinah & Another 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 738 and CVC Circular to support this. He also contended that the complaint against petitioner was in any case frivolous as was found by his Chief Engineer and was directed to harass him and deprive him of his promotion to the next post.