W.P.(C)--4673/2002. Case: F.S.CHAUHAN Vs. UOI & ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--4673/2002 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | December 11, 2018 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: December 11, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 4673/2002 & CM. Nos. 7933/2002 and 7934/2002
F.S.CHAUHAN
..... Petitioner
Through: In person versus
..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anil Airi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Adarsh Tripathi and Ms. Sukanya Lal, Advs for Respondents No.2 to 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
J U D G M E N T
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CM. No. 7934/2002 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4673/2002
-
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
(a) quash the Report of Enquiry dated 13/04/2001 and
UOI & ORS.
consequent order of dismissal of the petitioner
dated 21/06/2002 passed by respondent No.6
(b) quash the order of suspension dated 14/12/96, Memorandum of Charge dated 17/12/96 and order appointing Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer dated 6/9-1-97 passed by Shri G.P. Singh, then a Gen. Manager of respondent No.2.
(c) quash the resolution dated 2nd July 1997 of the Board of Directors of respondent No.2 including the malafide order of transfer of the petitioner from Dadri to Patna.
(d) direct the respondent No.2 to recover the cost of funds and resources of the company spent in defending the respondent No.5 and his co-accused in various courts of law in violation of section 201 of the Companies Act, 1956.
(e) direct the respondent No.2 to regularize the period of service of the petitioner from 1995 onward and grant him promotion and all other consequential benefits as due to him from 1995 till the date of disposal of this writ petition according to the level of his performance exhibited by the petitioner before 1995.
(f) allow the cost of litigation which the humble petitioner had to undergo along with a just compensation for the loss, damages and mental agonies which the humble petitioner and his family had to undergo.
(g) pass any other order or direction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents as deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
-
In substance, the challenge in the writ petition is to the report enquiry dated April 13, 2001 and the consequent order of dismissal of petitioner dated June 21, 2002, which was passed pursuant to chargesheet dated December 17, 1996 issued to the petitioner.
-
The facts as noted from the writ petition are that the petitioner National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) in the year 1979. While petitioner was working at Badarpur Thermal Power Station, he transferred and asked to report to respondent no.5, the then General Manager of National Capital Power Project, Dadri on July 10, 1995 who in directed the petitioner to report to one Shri Brij Kishore, Sr. Manager (EMG) and nominated the petitioner as the coordinator for Resettlement Rehabilitation (R&R) of the Project Affected Persons (PAPs) of a village, Muthiani. It is the case of the petitioner that a group of executives NCPP including Shri Brij Kishore, M.P.S. Bir, P.S. Soman, A.K.
Y.N.P. Sinha and K.S.S. Ajjan under the patronage of respondent No.5 engaged in a scandal of briberies, forgeries and misappropriation of public funds allocated for the resettlement and rehabilitation of the PAPs.
is his case that Shri Brij Kishore demanded illegal gratification from PAPs of village Muthiani for award of R&R contracts to them by exercising influence over the petitioner. On refusal by the said PAPs to pay gratification, Sh. M.P.S. Bir moved an office note dated August 17, 1995 award of the said R&R contracts to the non-PAPs on illegal considerations violation of the R&R policy of the company and Sh. P.S. Soman forwarded the same for recommendation of the petitioner. Thereupon, Sh. Brij Kishore, Sr. Manager (EMG), Sh. A. K. Atrea, Sr. Manager (CCD) and respondent
no.5 coerced the petitioner to recommend the award of the said contracts to the said non-PAPs. That on refusal of the petitioner recommend the said R&R contracts in favour of the said non PAPs, Sh. Kishrore secured a false and anonymous complaint written under dictation by one of his subordinates, Shri Brij Kishore Gupta, Sr. Engineer (EMG) under a fictitious name of “Jatav Samiti, Muthiani”
the petitioner under a conspiracy to implicate and to remove him from coordination‟ and thereupon to award the said contracts to the said non in their favour, for illegal considerations. It is the case of the petitioner in furtherance of the conspiracy, Sh. Y.N.P. Sinha, DGM (CCD) recorded false remarks on the said false complaint and respondent no.5 used the and anonymous complaint against the petitioner as genuine, knowing same to be false and thereby removed the petitioner from R&R Coordination and thereafter awarded the said R&R contracts to the said non-PAPs violation of the R&R policy on illegal considerations and further subjected the petitioner to the control of the said Sh. Brij Kishore. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted the complaint dated November 18, 1995 with documentary evidence of commission of aforesaid forgery and fraud respondent no.5. Respondent no.5 concealed the complaint and evidences enclosed therewith and continued to subject the petitioner to the control Sh. Brij Kishore. It is the case of the petitioner that on realizing the collusion
of respondent no.5 in the conspiracy, the complainant submitted a copy of the complaint dated November 18, 1995 to the then Director (Vigilance). Vigilance Department investigated the matter and found Sh. P.S. Soman,
M.P.S. Bir, Sh. R.C. Garg and Shri Brij Kishore Gupta, prima facie at fault in its report dated April 29, 1996, but the names of Shri Brij Kishore respondent no.5 were omitted. On further investigation, the controlling officer of the petitioner, Sh. Brij Kihsore, and his subordinate Sh. Kishore Gupta were chargesheeted but no action was taken against the others. That an aggrieved PAP filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC May 22, 1996 accusing Sh. G.P. Singh, Sh. Brij Kishore, Sh. P.S. Soman,
M.P.S. Bir, Sh. Y.N.P. Sinha and Sh. Brij Kishore Gupta of committed various cognizable criminal offences in the aforesaid matter which matter a Case Crime no. 35/1999 was registered on the orders of Court against the said executives. On failing to get his complaint November 18, 1995 redressed even after the vigilance investigation, petitioner invoked the Executive Grievance Procedure of NTPC in pursuance of which Sh. G.P. Singh, Sh. A.C. Chaturvedi and Sh. S. Manchanda themselves as Chairman, Member Secretary and Member of the Staff Council called the petitioner on July 20, 1996 and threatened that if the petitioner pursued the matter of his complaint dated November 18, 1995 anymore, himself would be chargesheeted by them. It is his case that the henchmen of
Sh. Brij Kishore threatened the petitioner and his family with consequences. Therefore, the petitioner requested the police for security vide letter dated August 26, 1996. It is his case that thereupon the petitioner submitted a representation dated September 16, 1996 to the respondent requesting for disciplinary action against respondent no.5 and accomplices. But no action was taken and the petitioner was still subjected the malafide control of Sh. Brij Kishore. It is the petitioner‟s case that December 1, 1996, the Director (Operation) of the respondent no.2 company (NTPC) Sh. B.N.Ojha, called upon the petitioner for getting his arms renewed at New Delhi on December 2, 1996. The petitioner already under the threat to his life started early in the morning at about 7.30 AM on December 2, 1996 from his residence. He deposited the weapon in police malkhana, collected all information on documents required; the power of attorney arms license of Sh. B.N. Ojha and got his license renewed. When petitioner handed over the renewed license back to Sh. B.N. Ojha in office at Scope Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi in the afternoon December 2, 1996, he was shocked to learn from Sh. B.N. Ojha that while the petitioner was present at New Delhi, Sh. Brij Kishore alleged that he assaulted by the petitioner at Dadri and Sh. G.P.Singh had passed an order of suspension of the petitioner.
-
It is his case that on advice of Sh. B.N. Ojha, he made a letter of
dated December 2, 1996 stating that the allegation of Sh. Brij Kishore false and handed over the same to respondent no.5 on December 3, 1996 even before receiving any allegation in writing. It is his case that respondent no. 5 instead of providing a copy of the complaint of Sh. Brij Kishore to petitioner treated the said letter of denial of the petitioner as his complaint against Sh. Brij Kishore and ordered a preliminary enquiry on December 1996 by Sh. K.S.S. Ajjan and placed the onus on the petitioner to prove the allegation of Sh. Brij Kishore, which till then was not even conveyed the petitioner, was false. On December 14, 1996, it was ordered that petitioner would report to Sh. S. Manchanda, the then Head of Technical Services Department w.e.f said date. It is his case that Sh. K.S.S. forced the petitioner to disclose his whereabouts and movements December 2, 1996 before levelling any allegation against him and it that after that Sh. Brij Kishore framed his complaint against the petitioner, ante-dated as of December 2, 1996, to fit into the details disclosed by petitioner. When the petitioner requested for an opportunity to make defence, Sh. K.S.S. Ajjan told him that there was no evidence adduced any one against him and therefore there was no need of defence. As such no witness was examined in the presence of the petitioner and the petitioner was also not allowed to produce evidence in his defence. It is the petitioner‟s contention that Sh. K.S.S. Ajjan had recorded the statement of some
at the back of the petitioner and prepared a report of preliminary enquiry the...
To continue reading
Request your trial