Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-929-605-4013

Civil Appeal No. 8854 of 2014. Case: Govt. of NCT (Delhi) Vs K. Srivatsan. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 8854 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: S.P. Singh, Sr. Adv., Kiran Bhardwaj and P.K. Dey, Advs. for B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. and For Respondents: Mohan Parasaran, Sr. Adv. and D.L. Chidananda, Adv. for Gaurav Dhingra, Adv.
JudgesJ.S. Khehar and Arun Mishra, JJ.
IssuePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rules 9, 9(1), 9(2), 9(6), 69
Judgement DateTuesday September 16, 2014
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

J.S. Khehar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. K. Srivatsan, the Respondent in this instant appeal came to be inducted into the Delhi Administration Subordinate Service. The instant employment, for all intends and purposes, may be considered as his parent cadre. On 23.9.2003, he was transferred by way of deputation, to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, he was appointed as an Administrative Officer, Land and Estate Department. In addition to the aforesaid responsibilities, the Respondent was vested with the charge of Dealing Assistant in the Land and Estate Department.

3. Whilst the Respondent was on deputation, charges of financial dereliction and favoritism came to be levelled against him. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi was of the view, that as a consequence of unauthorised decisions of the Respondent, it had to suffer extensive financial loss running into crores of rupees. It is for the aforesaid reason, that the Respondent came to be suspended by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 3.12.2007. The above order of suspension was, however, revoked on 5.2.2008.

4. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, again placed the Respondent under suspension by an order dated 29.2.2008. It thereupon passed an order dated 26.3.2008, ordering repatriation of the Respondent to his parent cadre. On 19.5.2008, the Respondent's parent department, i.e., the Delhi Administration, informed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, that the Respondent could not be repatriated, as he had been placed under suspension. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the Respondent remained with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He also remained under suspension. On 30.06.2008, the Respondent attained the age of superannuation. On that very day, his repatriation to the parent department was accepted.

5. On 27.06.2008, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi lodged a complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation making allegations, inter alia, against the Respondent, and recommended the initiation of action under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI registered the first information report, on the basis of the above complaint on 30.06.2008. Having investigated into the matter, the CBI submitted its closure report on 28.1.2010. The aforesaid closure report was accepted on 15.10.2012. On 19.04.2012, the CBI recommended departmental action against the Respondent. After the recommendations of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT