Rajiv Bhasin vs Centre For Develpment Of Telematics (C-Dot) & Anr

Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby quashing the letter No.C-DOT/EDR/RGR-ORDER/2019 dated 12.04.2019 and

consequently the order dated 25.01.2018 vide which the respondent no.1 had diluted the responsibilities of the Registrar in complete contravention of

the relevant rules.

Further seeks direction thereby directing the respondent no.1 not to issue any letters/orders in furtherance letter dated 12.04.2019 mentioned above.

Also seeks direction thereby directing the Central Vigilance Commission to initiate an independent enquiry into the vigilance complaint filed by the

petitioner.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner made complaint on 29.01.2018 to Executive Director of respondent no.1 regarding some irregularities

being asked to be done by the petitioner and thereafter almost same complaint made to the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication on

31.01.2018. Since there was no action upon the said complaints then the petitioner made a similar complaint to Chief Vigilance Officer/C-DOT on

05.02.2018. Still, there was no response from any of the authorities mentioned above, however, the petitioner was put under suspension vide order

dated 12.04.2019 pursuant to decision taken by the C-DOT Project Board, in its 238th Board Meeting held on 28.03.2019 and 12.04.2019. It is stated

in order dated 12.04.2019 that the Executive Director has decided to suspend the petitioner with immediate effect and Articles of Charges will be

issued within next 10 days.

Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the suspension order was issued by the same Executive

Director against whom the petitioner made complaints mentioned above. Had the petitioner done anything wrong or illegal or contrary to the rules and

procedures, the said Executive Director being a senior officer to the petitioner, would have taken action immediately if some wrong allegations made

in the complaint dated 29.01.2018. In addition to above, in the Board meeting dated 28.03.2019, the Executive Director ought not to have participated

for the reason that the petitioner made allegation against the Executive Director, in his complaint dated 29.01.2018.

Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel further submits that there were no basis to issue suspension order dated 12.04.2019, however, it was on the

malice and vindictiveness of the Executive Director in issuing the same.

Mr. K.K. Rai, learned senior counsel for the respondents who appeared on advance notice submits that after the suspension order dated

12.04.2019, the chargesheet has been issued to the petitioner on 26.04.2019 and served on 29.04.2019 and he was asked to file reply to the same. But

the petitioner sought time to file reply and also sought additional documents to be supplied to him.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that at this stage, since chargesheet is issued, after filing the present petition, therefore, he does not

want to comment upon the chargesheet and argued that on the date of issuance of the suspension order, there was no material before the Board

against the petitioner.

Counsel for the respondents has submitted a brief board resolution dated 12.04.2019 whereby it is stated that C-DOT Board, in exercise of powers

conferred by clause 3.2.9 of Chapter III under Rule 12 of the Rules and Regulations of the Bye-Laws for Centre for Development of Telematics, has

decided the following:

“(A) Initiate disciplinary proceedings against Mr.Rajiv Bhasin (Staff No. 5058), Registrar, C-DOT, based on the following findings :

I. Lapses in Service Contracts of C-DOT.

II. Willful Insubordination and disobedience of orders.

III. Maligning the organization’s image and that of its Board Members.

(B) Initiate disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Vivek Tripathi (Staff No. 2446), the then Manager (Admin) and other associated Staff of the

respective departments at the time of occurrence of the lapses.

(C) Place Mr. Rajiv Bhasin, Registrar, C-DOT under suspension with immediate effect. Mr. Rajiv Bhasin shall remain under suspension till further

orders.â€​

Mr.Shekhar has pointed out that though he is not touching the allegations made in the chargesheet, however, he pointed out that charge no.7 issued

against the petitioner in the chargesheet is only qua the complaint made against the Executive Director and the chargesheet issued by the Executive

Director itself. Therefore, the Executive Director cannot be judge of his own cause.

The fact remains that the chargesheet has been issued. The petitioner is asked to file reply to the same.

Therefore, I hereby dispose of the present petition giving liberty to the petitioner to file reply of the chargesheet and on receipt of the reply, the

respondents may take a final decision whether to proceed against the petitioner or to drop the proceedings.

Since the petitioner has made allegations against the Executive Director and charge no.7 is regarding those allegations, therefore, I deem it

appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the respondents comes to the conclusion that the departmental proceedings is to be initiated

against the petitioner, in my opinion, that shall not be done by the respondents herein, but only by the Central Vigilance Commission.

I hereby make it clear that the Executive Director shall not participate or assist directly or indirectly in the departmental proceedings.

I further make it clear that after the inquiry being conducted against the petitioner, the inquiry report shall be submitted to the disciplinary authority

who shall take final decision. However, the Executive Director shall not participate in any of the proceedings.

In view of above, the petition is disposed of.

As stated by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not paid subsistence allowance, counsel for the respondents has assured this court that

subsistence allowance as per law would be paid to the petitioner.

Pending application also stands disposed of.