HC (Min.) Shishu Pal, Aged 38 years vs Govt. Of NCTD Trough

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant was working as Head Constable (Ministerial) in Delhi Police. It is stated that at the relevant point of time, a separate District was being formed and that, in turn, necessitated purchase of various stationery items. The services of the applicant were utilized therein.

The applicant was issued a show cause notice dated 10.07.2008 stating that he procured stationery worth Rs.5,34,900/-, without there being any valid tender and in deviation of the prescribed procedure. The applicant submitted his explanation and not satisfied with the same, the inquiry officer framed charges against the applicant. After conducting the inquiry, he submitted a report holding the charges as proved. Taking the same into account, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 13.08.2008 imposing the punishment of censure upon the applicant. An appeal preferred before the appellate authority was rejected on 17.06.2010, as barred by limitation. Thereafter the applicant is said to have obtained some information by filing application under Right to Information Act, 2005, and incorporating the same, he filed this O.A.

The applicant contends that he was not conferred with the power either to issue tender or to purchase any stationery items and that as directed by his superiors, he procured material from various agencies and when the bills were submitted, they were cleared by the authorities, following the prescribed procedure.

The respondents filed the counter affidavit opposing the O.A. It is stated that the applicant deviated from the prescribed procedure in the context of procuring various stationery items. According to them, the disciplinary authority has followed the prescribed procedure and imposed the minimum punishment. An objection as regards limitation is also raised.

The O.A. was earlier dismissed through order dated 20. 07.2018. Aggrieved by that, the applicant filed W.P. (C) No.9497/2018 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It was observed that various points raised by the applicant were not dealt with in detail and accordingly, through order dated 11.09.2018, the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal. Hence, we heard Mr. Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for applicant and Ms. Sangita Rai, learned counsel for respondents, at length.

The only allegation made against the applicant, as is evident from the show cause notice as well as impugned order dated 13.08.2008, is that while making purchase of stationery items, he did not follow the codal formalities, nor any quotations were invited. The allegation would have certainly held water had it been a case where the applicant is vested with the power to make purchases or to issue tenders. It was not even alleged that the applicant is vested with such power. Obviously, on the directions and instructions of the superiors, the applicant procured some stationery items from various agencies. The bills were submitted and the competent authority has cleared them and made the payments. The applicant has absolutely no role to play in the context of either passing the bills or making the payments.

Things would have been different altogether had the proceedings been initiated against officers vested with the power to make purchase and the applicant is also roped therein as the one, who abetted the wrong. Initiation of proceedings exclusively against the applicant on such an allegation is totally impermissible in law.

To buttress his contention, the applicant obtained information from the respondents as to the manner of purchase made after he was replaced in the office. In the information so furnished, it was clearly mentioned that the items worth crores of rupees were purchased and payments were made on the 'ex post facto' approval. No mention was made about the floating of tenders before such purchase was made. When this was the prevailing practice, even after the applicant was replaced, the question of imposing any punishment does not arise.

As regards question of limitation, we find that the applicant has been pursuing the remedies in one form or the other, and delay, if at all, has taken place in the process of acquiring the material to strengthen his case. We are satisfied that the applicant has explained the delay in filing the O.A. The objection is overruled.

We, therefore, allow the O.A. The impugned order is set aside.

There shall be no order as to costs.