WING COMMANDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two review applications have been filed in a disposed of writ petition. Review Application No. 1/2007 was filed by the petitioner who had filed the writ petition(hereinafter to be referred to as the writ petitioner?) for quashing the order of his suspension dated 30.05.2003 as well as the charge-sheet dated 28.08.2003 given to him by the Indian Council of Historical Research(ICHR? in short) where he was working as a Director. Review Application No.41/2007 was filed on behalf of ICHR which was arrayed as respondent no.2 in the writ petition. Both had sought review of the judgment dated 20th December,2006 whereby the writ petition was allowed and the impugned suspension order as well as the charge-sheet were quashed by this Court.

(2.) THE writ petitioner had challenged his suspension as well as issuance of charge-sheet issued to him for as many as nineteen acts of misconduct allegedly committed by him primarily on the ground that it had been done by the then Chairman of ICHR with mala fide intentions since the writ petitioner had exposed certain financial irregularities committed by him which had resulted in his indictment in the statutory audit report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

(3.) BEFORE the review application filed by the writ petitioner could be disposed of ICHR also came out with a review application claiming that even though the writ petition was allowed partly and ICHR was given the liberty to give a fresh charge-sheet to the writ petitioner but at the same time it had also been observed by this Court that out of 19 charges only a few could be shown to be of any worth and also that some complaints had become stale. These observations, according to ICHR, were made inadvertently and that was evident from the fact that the Court had also observed while quashing the earlier charge-sheet that the writ petitioner should not be allowed to go scot-free for certain acts committed by him and that the charge-sheet was being quashed on the ground of it having been issued mala fide by the then Chairman and the new Chairman was permitted to take a fresh look into the matter and, if required, to give a fresh charge-sheet also to the writ petitioner.