SANDEEP VATS Vs. DELHI TRANSCO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this instant petition the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the impugned Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) order / advice dated 01.10.2012 being illegal and arbitrary and further seeks to set aside the impugned charge memo dated 30.08.2011 issued by the disciplinary authority as well as disagreement note dated 12.10.2012.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected for the post of Deputy General Manager on 14.02.2008. Thereafter, on 16.12.2010, he was put under suspension. On 30.08.2011, memorandum with article of charges was served upon the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority. As per the enquiry report, there were nine articles of charge. Article Nos.I, VI, VII were proved but Article Nos.II, III, IV, V, VIII and IX were not proved.

(3.) THE petitioner is aggrieved with para 3 of the CVC's advice wherein the CVC has advised imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon para 17 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Nagraj Shivarao Karjagi vs. Syndicate Bank, Head Office Manipal JT 1991 (2) S.C. 529, which reads as under: