KAMAL NAYAN BHATT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, presently working as Joint Director in Border Road Organisation and due for promotion to the next higher post of Director (Administration) has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He seeks quashing of the Memorandum dated 19th March, 2012, whereby respondent No. 2 has initiated minor penalty proceedings against him under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The reason for issuing the said memorandum is that the petitioner had issued an experience certificate in favour of one Mr. Virendra Dutt Joshi, Supervisor NT Grade -II GS -184797F, who was one amongst many candidates seeking appointment to the post of Administrative Officer (Group A) in the Border Road Organisation although the post occupied by him was neither a supervisory post nor a post relevant for making him eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer in BRO.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the legality, validity and correctness of such experience certificates issued by GREF Officers and the Army officers in favour of the candidates seeking appointment to the post of Administrative Officer was a subject matter of writ petitions decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10th July, 2013 in the case of Vinod Singh and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., wherein the Court took the view that the experience certificates issued by the officers in favour of such candidates were valid and proper and the same duly met the eligibility conditions notified by the UPSC. It is also contended that Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 37734 -37736/2013 were preferred by the Union of India challenging the decision of the Division Bench in CWP No. 4997/2011, CWP 5457/2011, CWP No. 6403/2011. The said SLPs were dismissed by the Supreme Court of India on 6.1.2014. The petitioner's grievance is that despite the validity of the experience certificates, issued by GREF officers and Army officers, being upheld by the Supreme Court, the respondents have not withdrawn the minor penalty proceedings against him; although the Competent Authority has already exonerated all the 30 Army officers who had issued identical experience certificates.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel also invited attention of the Court to a copy of the letter dated 6th December, 2012 whereby the matter was taken up by the Director General, Border Road Organisation with the Deputy Secretary BRDB requesting them to re -examine the cases of the GREF officers for their exoneration, at par with the Army officers, who already stood exonerated for issuing the same kind of experience certificates so that there is no disparity in dispensing justice in identical cases. The learned senior counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the list of 30 Army officers, out of which 20 officers against whom show cause notices were issued but were exonerated and for the remaining officers, it was decided to not proceed further and the matter with regard to the issuance of experience certificates by the Army officers was treated as closed. The learned senior counsel has also invited the attention of the Court to a letter dated 18th October, 2012 written by the Additional Director General to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence recommending repeal of the Memorandum dated 19th March, 2012 issued against the petitioner. The petitioner had filed a detailed representation against it seeking dropping of the proceedings against him under Rule 16 CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 so that he is not deprived of being considered to the higher post of Director (Administration). However, no response or decision was taken thereon by the respondents.