OM PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 22 writ petitions raise almost common questions of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of these writ petitions are: that in these writ petitions, the petitioners have mostly challenged the charge sheets that have been served on them for their different acts of misconduct and in most of these wit petitions, the enquiries are pending. In D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3574 of 1991, V.K. Choturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. the petitioner has been reverted to the rank of Sub Inspector for a period of two years vide order Annexure A/6. In D.B.Civil writ petitions No. 6599 of 1991, S.C.Kataria v. U.O.I. and Ors. and 3674 of 1992, Inder Raj Singh v. U.O.I. and Ors. the petitioners have been punished with stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect. In D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4595 of 1991, Om Prakash v. U.O.I. and Ors. the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner alongwith the punishment order. In D.B. Civil Writ Petitioner No. 4984 of 1992, Sheo Pratap Tiwari v. U.O. I and Ors.,initially an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was removed from service but later on, when he filed a writ petition, he has been reinstated and now, a fresh charge sheet has been served on him. In D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5965 of 1993, P.K. Goyal v. U.O.I. and Ors. the enquiry was completed and a notice to show cause as to why proposed punishment should not be awarded to him has been issued. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the charge sheets served on them and in the cases, in which, punishment orders have been passed or notice to show cause as to why proposed punishment should not be awarded, has been issued, the petitioners have prayed that they be quashed.

(3.) THE entire Rule 153 of the rules has been challenged in D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 2835 of 1992, 4236 of 1992 and 6737 of 1992. The validity of Rule 153.3 of the Rules has not been challenged in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4984 of 1992, Sheo Pratap Tiwari v. V.O.I and Ors. In that case, what the petitioner has contended is that the charge sheet is violative of Rule 153.3 of the Rules because, on similar charges, somebody has been visited with the minor punishment whereas he has been issued a charge sheet for major punishment. He has only challenged the vires of Rule 153.8 of the Rules. The vires of Rule 153.8 of the Rules has also been challenged in D.B.Civil Writ Petitions No. 5155 of 1990, 2399 of 1991, 3594 of 1991, 4218 of 1991, 6599 of 1991, 3674 of 1992. 3675 of 1992, 4287 of 1992, 4288 of 1992, 4595 of 1991. 4665 of 1992, 4984 of 1992, 5750 of 1992, 6475 of 1992, 173 of 1993, 3136 of 1993. and 5965 of 1993. The validity of Rule 153.11 has been challenged in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4595 of 1991 and the validity of Rule 153.12 has been challenged in D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 4287 of 1992 and 4288 of 1992 on the ground that they suffer from excessive delegation. The validity of Rule 153.15 has been challenged in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3594 of 1991 and the validity of Rule 154.1 has been challenged in D.B.Civil Writ Petitions No. 3594 of 1991, 6599 of 1991, 3674 of 1992, 4595 of 1991 and 6475 of 1992. It may be stated here that details facts of each case need not be stated because in these cases, we are not much concerned about those facts.