Ved Prakash Pandey vs Ntpc Limited And Ors

The petitioner, the Additional General Manager, (C & M) SSC (Shared Service Centre) at NTPC, Barh, seeks quashing of the entire disciplinary proceedings including the memorandum of charge dated 10.7.2018 as being vindictive.

It is submitted that the petitioner has been victimised as he was raising his voice against the deep rooted corruption in the organisation involving the highest level in the management.

The pleadings make is abundantly clear that the petitioner has been participating in the enquiry since initiation of the same under charge memo dated 10.7.2018. He has also cross examined the management witnesses. He however submits that the proceedings being conducted against him suffers from various procedural lapse striking at the root of fairness.

From the pleadings in the writ petition it is apparent that the petitioner has raised objection of non supply of certain documents. It is further apparent from a bare reading of para 42 of the writ petition that the petitioner has also been allowed an opportunity to cross-examine two management witnesses. The pleadings are such that they cast a question mark on the fairness with which the authorities have proceeded. The petitioner has alleged that he is being seriously prejudiced by unfair procedure being adopted at the enquiry.

Having considered the said pleadings, this Court would observe that the proceedings have a long way to go. This Court would not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to speculate whether the proceeding would culminate in submission of enquiry report holding the charges to be proved and that the petitioner would not get a fair treatment by the Disciplinary Authority as well. Such an exercise would be purely academic at this stage of the departmental proceeding. The competent authorities in the proceedings were yet to decide whether the charges against the petitioner are proved or not.

In the aforesaid circumstances this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not the appropriate stage to interfere into the matter. No case is made out for interference at this stage. Refusal to exercise jurisdiction at this stage however will not in any way have any adverse affect on the petitioner's right to raise all issues, including the issue of mala fide, if need arises.

The writ petition is premature. The same is accordingly dismissed.