Cont. Cas(C) 626/2008 Krishan Chander Vs. Shiv Shankar Menon & Anr. Page 1 Of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: January 12, 2009 Date of Order: February 08, 2010 + Cont. Cas.(C) 626 of 2008 % 08.02.2010 Krishan Chander ...Petitioners Through: Mr. Suresh Tripathy, Advocate Versus Shiv Shankar Menon & Anr. ...Respondents Through: Mr. N.V. Niren, CGSC for R-1 and R-2 JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition alleging non-compliance of the order dated 21st August, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court whereby the Division Bench upheld an order dated 20th October, 2005 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) but gave liberty to the respondent to take a fresh view in the matter after supplying a copy of the recommendations of UPSC to respondent (petitioner herein) and giving adequate opportunity to him to respond to the same. 2. The respondent preferred a Special Leave Petition against the order passed by Division Bench of this Court which was admitted, however, no stay of the operation of the order of this Court was granted. Thereafter, respondent recalled the order of retirement of the petitioner and issued an order dated 16th April, 2008 wherein it was stated that the order dated 12th April, 2005 regarding compulsory retirement of the petitioner was being set aside. However, the petitioner in terms of provisions of Section 10(4) CCS(CCR) Rules, 1965 was placed under suspension, after his reinstatement, in view of the charges proved against him and in view of the fact that disciplinary authority was yet to consider the action against him in terms of order passed by this Cont. Cas(C) 626/2008 Krishan Chander Vs. Shiv Shankar Menon & Anr. Page 2 Of 3 Court. 3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that he could not have been suspended and he was not only supposed to be reinstated but given the duty under the orders of CAT and the penalty as suggested by CAT could only have been imposed. 4. The petitioner was functioning as Vice-Consul, Consulate General of India at Houston, USA. A sum of US$ 270 was received by the petitioner as emergency fees from three Visa applications in cash. He did not deposit the cash received from the applicants with treasury and kept the cash with him. This cash amount was shown only in the first copy of cash receipt and on the subsequent copies meant for office record, the amount of emergency fee of US$ 270 was not even shown and this amount, was pocketed by the petitioner. Charges were framed against the petitioner about this misconduct and dereliction of duties and for corrupt practices adopted by the petitioner. During inquiry proceedings, the petitioner was asked to give his handwriting, he deliberately altered his handwriting so as to change the format and design of certain letters. A charge regarding this was also framed. The charges of pocketing of US$ 270 and not depositing the same with government account and altering of his handwriting were proved against the petitioner. Another charge in respect of pocketing the visa fee of a different applicant was not proved. The disciplinary authority in consultation with UPSC imposed penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from services. The petitioner filed an OA before CAT and the CAT vide its judgment held that compulsory retirement was not proper and held that the penalty as recommended by the disciplinary authority initially i.e. reduction to lower grade by two stages in time scale of pay was sufficient to meet the ends of justice. This Court while partly allowing a writ petition against the order of the CAT observed that when a recommendation is received from UPSC it was necessary to inform the delinquent employee with the advice of UPSC before acting upon the advice. This Court therefore observed that the judgment of CAT did not call for any interference. However, this Court gave liberty to the respondent that it would be open to the disciplinary authority to take fresh view in the matter after supplying a copy of the recommendations of UPSC to petitioner and giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to Cont. Cas(C) 626/2008 Krishan Chander Vs. Shiv Shankar Menon & Anr. Page 3 Of 3 respond to the same. 5. The order of compulsory retirement continued to be null and so the respondent was to allow the petitioner to join the services. 6. It is under these circumstances that the respondent revoked the order of compulsory retirement and thereafter supplied a copy of UPSC recommendations to the petitioner and disciplinary authority proceeded to take a fresh view after receiving response of the petitioner. The petitioner was thus placed under suspension and suspension allowance as pre rules is being paid. 7. I consider that since the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner had not come to an end and the respondent was still in the process of considering the imposition of penalty after receiving response of the petitioner, I find no fault with the respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension after reinstating him till the disciplinary authority takes a decision after following due course of law. I find no force in the present contempt petition. The petition is hereby dismissed. February 08, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd