Disciplinary proceedings are essentially a matter between the
employer and the employee and public interest litigation in such
matter would hardly be maintainable. The Supreme Court held as
under: -
But a mere busybody who has no interest cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court. In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a writ petition in the high Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action against an employee is taken by the government for various reasons principally for "misconduct" on the 12
part of the employee. This action is taken after a "domestic" inquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as required by the constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee, and a stranger, much less a practising advocate, cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are entertain at the instance of persons who are not connected with those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of court."
Bombay High Court
Dr. Arvind Kumar Sharma vs Bhavan, Central Avenu on 5 February, 2009
JUDGMENT : ( PER SWATANTER KUMAR, J )
1. The Petitioner, who claims to be a Medical Practitioner,
having served on a short service commission for a period of five years
with the Armed Forced Medical Corps in the Indian Navy as a
Surgeon Lt. Commander and now residing with his family at the
Kakrapur Atomic Power Station where his wife is serving in a hospital,
has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India with the following prayers :
"(a) That this Hon' ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos.1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 to follow the procedure for major penalty and initiate a departmental enquiry against Respondent No.3 among others, in conformity with the decision taken on 29th August, 2006 (Exhibit - F hereto ) by Respondent Nos.1 and Respondent No.5 and on the basis of the report of Respondent No.7 the Chief Vigilance Officer of Respondent No.5 the Nuclear Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd;
(b) In the alternative this Hon' Court be ble
pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos.2, 4, 5 and 7 to initiate a departmental enquiry against Respondent Nos.3 on the basis of the report of Respondent No.5 the Chief 4
Vigilance Officer of Respondent No.5 the National Power Corporation of India Pvt. Ltd.;
( c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition this Hon' High Court be ble
pleased to restrain the Respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 9 from victimizing and discriminating against the wife of the Petitioner Dr.(Mrs.) Rakhi Sharma presently serving Respondent No.5 as a doctor MO - E, in public interest; in the alternative such victimization will be act as a deterrent to members of the public interested in securing the better implementation of the Central Vigilance Act 2005;
(d) For ad-interim and interim relief in terms of prayers (a), (b) and ( c).
(e) That this Hon' Court be pleased to fix a ble
peremptory date for final hearing of this Petition in public interest ;
(f) for such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require;
(g) For costs of the Petition.
2. The above prayers have been made by the Petitioner on
the premises that his wife is posted at the Kakrapur Atomic Power
Station hospital and residing in that complex. Respondent No.3 is 5
the Medical Superintendent of the Kakrapur Atomic Power Station
hospital at Anumala, Vyara, Surat. It is averred by the Petitioner that
he came to know about certain irregularities, omissions and
commissions of Respondent No.3 particularly, in relation to
functioning of the hospital including bulk purchase of medicines on the
verge of expiry as per the dates notified on the medicines from local
medical stores and harassing the officers and officials residing in the
locality. Respondent No.3, who is a person of high contact with the
officials of Kakrapur Atomic Power Station, declined to cooperate.
Finally, the Petitioner made a complaint to the Central Vigilance
Commission. The Commission, through its Director, forwarded the
complaint to the Chief Vigilance Officer of Nuclear Power Corporation
of India Limited for investigation. The Chief Vigilance Officer of
Respondent No.5, after investigating the complaint made by the
Petitioner, by report dated 5th July, 2006 forwarded a report to
Respondent No.6, wherein, according to the Petitioner, it was
recorded that Respondent No.3 had pressurized the visiting Ayurvedic
Physician at the Kakrapur Atomic Power Station hospital to prescribe
medicines to a patient and himself procured the medicines worth 6
Rs.84,175/- for a single patient from the Imprest fund available with
the hospital only earmarked for emergencies and/or contingencies to
obtain urgently life saving medicines and like this, other irregularities
were also found. A copy of the report has been annexed as Exhibit
-C to the Writ Petition. Despite receiving this communication, the
other officials/respondents did not take appropriate steps and though
Respondent No.6 had directed Respondent No.5 to conduct an
enquiry against Respondent No.3, Respondent No.3 was tampering
with the records and harassing the doctors at the Kakrapur Atomic
Power Station hospital. This activity continued and Respondent No.5
brought no results. The Petitioner once again by his letter dated 17th
May, 2007 communicated to Respondent No.1 requesting them to
complete enquiry and to take appropriate action against Respondent
No.3 but the same was also delayed. Upon an application dated 1st
December, 2007 made by the Petitioner to ascertain what progress
had been made. The Petitioner once again, under the Right to
Information Act 2005, addressed letters dated 3rd March, 2008 and
13th March, 2008 to Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.6
requesting them to supply copies of the communications of the 7
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. to ascertain on what facts
and basis the complaint of the Petitioner was treated as closed by
Respondent Nos.1 and 5. Respondent No.2, based on extraneous
and irrelevant reasons, decided not to proceed with the departmental
enquiry to impose major penalty upon Respondent No.3 It is also
contended by the Petitioner that his family was being harassed and
the concerned Respondents were not taking appropriate action
against Respondent No.3. On the aforesaid basis, the prayers in the
present petition were made.
3. A detailed reply has been filed on behalf of the
Respondents. The allegations made therein have been denied and
it has been stated that the departmental enquiry had been conducted
and it was nowhere found that Respondent No.3 is liable to be
proceeded with and punished him against the service rules.
According to the Respondents, the matter in question has been
looked into by the Competent Authority from various angles and it has
decided not to take any action against the said Respondent No.3. 8
4. It is true that in the report dated 5th July, 2006 submitted
by the Chief Vigilance Officer to the Director, Central Vigilance
Commission, New Delhi, certain irregularities, omissions and
commissions have been mentioned in that report. It has also been
stated therein that Respondent No.3 had produced fake bills of
medicines and had procured out of the imprest fund 12 times and
recouped the imprest fund of Kakrapur Atomic Power Station
Accounts and such other irregularities have also been committed.
5. However, on the basis of the report of the Chief Vigilance
Officer, the Competent Authority has examined the entire matter and
one Shri Pradeep Kumar, DCI, Central Vigilance Commission, had
been nominated as the Inquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry against
Respondent No.3. The enquiry report was submitted and vide letter
dated 1st January, 2008, the Director and CPIO of Central Vigilance
Commission of Government of India, informed the Petitioner as
under:-
"No.CVC/RIT/07/709-75790
9
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION
Satarkta Bhawan, G.P. O.
Complex
Block A, INA, New Delhi 110 023.
Date : 14th December 2007
01.01.08
Shir Arvind Kumar Sharma
Surgeon Lieutenant Commander
Room No.2
Asvini Ward Room Mess
INHS Asvini
RC Church
Colaba
Mumbai.
Sub : Request under Right to Information Act 2005
Please refer to your application dated 01st December 2007.
2. In this connection, it is to inform you that in agreement with reports from NPCIL, the Commission has approved closure of the complaint against Dr. NK Ajmera. From this, it is apparent that he was not found guilty and therefore, the question of punishment reward does not arise.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar )
Director and CPIO
Tele: 2461 8626"
10
6. Vide report dated 9th April, 2007, the Chairman &
Managing Director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited had
informed the Additional Secretary, Central Vigilance Commission, that
in the circumstances and details recorded in the letter under
reference, he was of the considered opinion that there was no case
for action against Respondent No.3 and requested them to agree with
the finding which was so done by the letter dated 1st January, 2008.
The Respondents have further annexed certain documents to show
that the matter has been properly investigated into and finally the
Competent Authority had formed an opinion that Respondent No.3 is
not guilty of any misconduct. This opinion has actually been
endorsed by the Vigilance Commission.
7. In the above circumstances, it is not necessary for this
Court to sit as an Appellate Authority against the decision of the
Disciplinary Authority and to substitute its view with that of the
Disciplinary Authority. The decision not being a case of total
arbitrariness and colourable exercise, such decision of the Authority 11
would normally be accepted by the Court. Except bald allegations of
high contacts of Respondent No.3, no specific averments have been
made that the said Respondent has been able to influence the
departmental enquiry to the extent that it has been vitiated by the vice
of arbitrariness or favouratism.
8. In the case of Rajnit Prasad v. Union of India & Ors.,
(2000)9 SCC 313. the Supreme Court has specifically held that the
disciplinary proceedings are essentially a matter between the
employer and the employee and public interest litigation in such
matter would hardly be maintainable. The Supreme Court held as
under: -
"9. But a mere busybody who has no interest cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court. In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a writ petition in the high Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action against an employee is taken by the government for various reasons principally for "misconduct" on the 12
part of the employee. This action is taken after a "domestic" inquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as required by the constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee, and a stranger, much less a practising advocate, cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are entertain at the instance of persons who are not connected with those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of court."
9. We may also notice that public interest litigation would be
maintainable only to remedy the public wrong, injury and not for
redressal of private or other disputes not genuinely concerned with
public interest and the matters covered under the private field would
hardly be made subject matter of the public interest litigation.
10. Furthermore, in relation to service matters the concept of
public interest litigation cannot be invoked. The Supreme Court in the
case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
(2005)1 SCC 590. Following the case of Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. 13
Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998)7 SCC 273, held that in service matter
public interest litigations should not be entertained.
11. In view of the above stated position and the facts and
circumstances of the present case, we do not think that this is a fit
case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India and allow this public interest litigation.
Though some suspicion was caused by the report of the Chief
Vigilance Officer but that matter has been put at rest by the
Disciplinary Authority whose view was also accepted by the Central
Vigilance Commission. As such no grounds have been made out in
the present case which in view of the Authorities concerned would
justify interference by this Court. However, if the Petitioner has any
material he may move the concerned Authorities and we have no
doubt in our mind that the Authorities concerned would act in
accordance with law.
12. The Writ Petition accordingly is disposed of, with no order
as to costs.
14
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J
No comments:
Post a Comment