ANIL KUMAR RAJVANSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is yet another illustration of frivolous and vexatious litigation, the number of which has been increasing day to day.

(2.) A perusal of the record shows that immediately after issuance of order dated 8.9.1999 by the Government of India vide which the President's sanction to the initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner had been granted under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short, the Rules), he filed an application under Section 19(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') and succeeded in persuading Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') to entertain the same and also pass an interim order dated 21.12.1999 directing the non-applicants (respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein) not to hold enquiry in respect of any event which had taken place more than 4 years before the initiation of departmental proceedings. That appears to have happened because counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 5 did not bring to the notice of the Tribunal the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kacker, 1995 7 SLR 430; Union of India v. A.N. Saxena, 1992 4 SLR 11 and by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 344 of 2000 - O.P. Sachdeva and others v. The Food Corporation of India and others, 2000 2 SCT 726 decided on 13.1.2000 against Courts interdiction in the pending departmental enquiries.

(3.) The interim order passed by the Tribunal did not satisfy the petitioner and, therefore, after receiving notices from the Enquiry Officer to inspect the record and participate in the proceedings of enquiry, he filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1129 of 2001 for restraining the concerned authority from continuing the proceedings of enquiry. This was another attempt by the petitioner to subvert the proceedings of enquiry notwithstanding the fact that on an earlier occasion, the Tribunal had declined his prayer for stay of the departmental enquiry. We are happy to note that the Tribunal did not entertain the unjustified prayer of the petitioner for stay of the enquiry and granted limited stay against passing of the final order.