RAKESH CHOPRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who is currently serving as Superintending Engineer (CIV) in Border Roads Organisation, being aggrieved with the chargesheet dtd. 22/4/2025, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, is before this Court assailing the same on the ground that the said chargesheet is legally invalid, inasmuch as, the stated charge is that he had "failed to submit the inquiry report" for 3(three) departmental inquiries when infact, the said reports had already been submitted by the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. N.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned chargesheet dtd. 22/4/2025, is without due cause, in violation of laid down rules and procedure and has been made deliberately to victimize and harass the petitioner and more importantly, to block his promotion which is due very soon. The single charge imputed against the petitioner he submits, is of non-submission of the inquiry reports with regard to 3(three) disciplinary inquiries, wherein the petitioner was appointed as Inquiry Officer. This charge, he contends, is unfounded, inasmuch as, from a bare perusal of the records i.e., two letters dtd. 18/6/2024 and one letter dtd. 20/6/2024, which are annexed to the writ petition, it can clearly be seen that the inquiry reports had already been submitted 10(ten) months before issuance of the chargesheet. This fact, he submits, is not refuted by the respondents as in the counter affidavit itself, it has been stated that the inquiry reports have been submitted. The sole charge alleged against the petitioner therefore, he contends, is non-existent, untenable and is null and void, inasmuch as, the disciplinary authority after receipt of the inquiry reports, have also passed final orders on the same in September, 2024. The charge therefore, he submits, being a conscious and deliberate fabrication to initiate a proceeding where no cause of action exists, the impugned chargesheet is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel has further submitted that the impugned chargesheet is also liable to be quashed for violation of applicable rules, as the disciplinary authority failed to take first stage CVC advice before issuing the impugned chargesheet as mandated by CVC Office Order No. 23/04/04 dtd. 13/4/2004, as amended by CVC Office Order No. 74/12/05 dtd. 21/12/2005, due to the presence of a vigilance angle. The reason, he submits, is because as per the Office Order No. 74/12/05, any undue delay in disposal of a case would reinforce a conclusion as to the presence of a vigilance angle. Further, it is submitted as per the SOP, it had been made mandatory to obtain first stage advice from the CVC to the Ministry of Defence, whereever allegation of doubtful integrity is raised which however, was not done in the present case, nor a preliminary investigation conducted as per the same SOP. The impugned chargesheet it is contended, has also been issued without approval from the competent disciplinary authority which is the President of India through the Minister of Defence, for cases against Group A Officers such as the petitioner, as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and no materials had been brought on record to show that such approval was sought for, or granted prior to the issuance of the chargesheet dtd. 22/4/2025. The learned counsel then submits that the impugned chargesheet had been issued only to victimize the petitioner with malafide intent, as the petitioner has placed on record a series of events which unfolded immediately after he had made a whistle blower complaint in March 2022. Learned counsel has then gone on to illustrate the events of victimization.