ARUN KUMAR GOEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.1057/2018 (Exemption)

(2.) The question raised in this petition is pertaining to the period prior to the institution of the disciplinary proceedings i.e. in respect of the sanction. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Sanction Order (Annexure P-1) as well as Memorandum (Annexure P-2) are bearing two dates i.e. 21st November, 2017 and 23rd November, 2017 and it is not clear on perusal of these two documents i.e. Annexure P-1 & P-2, as to whether the sanction had preceded the Memorandum or vice versa. It is pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that these documents i.e. Annexure P-1 & P-2, are signed by the same officer and from the impugned Sanction Order (Annexure P-1), it is not clear that the sanction for institution of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner has been accorded by the President of India as mandated by Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

(3.) Learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent has produced original file to show that vigilance case against petitioner was put up before the concerned Minister seeking sanction to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against petitioner in terms of Rule 9 (b) (i) & (ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the sanction was duly accorded by the Minister concerned on 4th August, 2017. Attention of this Court is drawn to Note 30 to Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965), which provides that having regard to the Transaction of Business Rules, it is necessary that in case where Disciplinary Authority is the President, the institution of disciplinary proceedings should be approved by the Minister concerned. The office notings produced before the court do reflect that the concerned Joint Secretary had signed the Office Notings on 21st November, 2017 in the name of the President after receiving the sanction from the concerned Minister and the Central Vigilance Commission had approved the Sanction Order (Annexure P-1) and thereafter Memorandum (Annexure P-2) has been formally issued on 23rd November, 2017. So, the challenge to Sanction Order does not survive as it is evident that the sanction for institution of disciplinary proceedings in terms of Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 was duly accorded in the instant case.