R K NAFRIA Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALLOWED , subject to just exceptions.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22nd April, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, rejecting OA No.4559 of 2013. It appears that the respondent -CPWD issued a memorandum dated 22nd November, 2013 calling upon the petitioner to explain the reasons of certain lapses ranging from 2006 onwards. The petitioner's several requests to the respondents seeking copies of the documents to enable him to submit a reply to the said memorandum was not acceded to by the respondents. The respondents' claimed before the Tribunal that the petitioner was permitted inspection of the record on 24 th December, 2014 and that he had seen the record. It was submitted that in terms of the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commissioner at the stage of conducting a preliminary inquiry, the respondents are not required to make available to the employee concerned, any documents at that stage. In view thereof, the respondents had complied with the requirements of law inasmuch as at that stage the matter was under consideration as a preliminary inquiry alone.

(3.) MR .M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through para 4.4 (g) of the guidelines by the Central Vigilance Commission which reads as follows: -