* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.1656/2010 & CM No.3322/2010 Date of Decision: 10th March, 2010 CONST.RAM KISHAN YADAV ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Randhir Jain, Adv. with Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Adv. & Mr. Dhananjai, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. D.S. Mahendru, Adv. with Mr. Jayendra, Adv. for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No GITA MITTAL, J (Oral) 1. An order dated 13th June, 1998 dismissing the petitioner from service after holding a disciplinary inquiry was set aside by this court by a judgment dated 18th December, 2009 passed in WP (C) No.7140/2009 entitled Ram Kishan Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors. The judgment of this court was premised on the ground that the petitioner had not been served with chargesheet even though the respondents had sent the same to him. While disposing of the writ petition, by the judgment dated 18th December, 2009, the court had directed as follows:- “19. Noting that the taint in the action of the respondent is of not serving the charge-sheet upon the petitioner, we take on record the fact that in Court today, a photocopy of the charge-sheet (to be treated as an original) has been - 1 - handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in turn has handed over the same to the petitioner. Let the petitioner respond within six weeks. We clarify that it would be open to the Disciplinary Authority to nominate a fresh Enquiry Officer who would hold an enquiry after notifying a date of appearance to the petitioner. 21. Lest there be any confusion as to the address of the petitioner, we note that future correspondence as desired by the petitioner would be at the following address:- “Constable Ram Kishan Yadav S/o Sh. Hari Singh R/o Village Zahid Pur, P.O. Burthal, Tehsil Kosli, Distt. Rewari (Haryana). 22. In what manner the period between the date when service of the petitioner were terminated and till enquiry is conducted should be treated for purposes of service record, would be decided by the Competent Authority.” 2. Pursuant to the directions made by this court, the respondents have permitted the petitioner to join service on the 3rd February, 2010. In addition thereto, the respondents have issued an order bearing no.P-VIII-S/97-EC-II dated 8th January, 2010 whereby the respondents have proposed a disciplinary inquiry to be held against the petitioner. The respondents have passed an order dated 11th January, 2010 proposing appointment of an inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry into the charges and imputations which were already served upon the petitioner in the proceedings held on 18th December, 2009 in the earlier writ petition. 3. It is not disputed that the inquiry officer is seized of the entire matter. 4. The present writ petition makes a grievance of the failure to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 22nd February, 2010. The petitioner has contended that the respondents have failed to supply him the documents which he had sought by this representation. Additionally, the petitioner assails the order dated 18th February, 2010 rejecting the petitioner's request for appointment of a lawyer to conduct his defence. Our attention has been drawn to an order dated 18th February, 2010 which reads as follows:- - 2 - “You are informed that as per Circular Order no.06/05-I- 3/INST-2 Legal dated 16.09.2005 issued by Director General C.R.P.F. DO Letter no.D-IX-32/03 CRC dated 16.11.2005 of Director General C.R.P.F. and rule 15(8) (a) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, government servant cannot take legal practitioner in departmental inquiry.” 5. So far as the prayer for documents is concerned, no order of the respondent in respect thereto has been pointed out. Certainly, such a request deserves to be considered and the order passed on the request of the petitioner requires to be communicated to him. 6. We also find that the present writ petition lays a challenge to interim orders passed by the inquiry officer. The same is unwarranted and appears to be a deliberate attempt to delay and avoid the proceedings in the disciplinary inquiry. Even otherwise, such orders and proceedings in the disciplinary inquiry can be assailed by the petitioner at the stage of laying challenge to the final order, if the same is against him. 7. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition on the given challenges. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondent to consider the representation dated 22nd February, 2010 and communicate the order passed thereon to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. 8. So far as the grounds of challenge to the proceedings which are being conducted, is concerned, it is clarified that it shall be open for the petitioner to lay a challenge on all grounds including those raised in the present writ petition if he is aggrieved by the final outcome of the inquiry when he shall be permitted to urge the same as the ground of challenge. 9. The respondent shall ensure that any pending salary of the petitioner for the period from 3rd February, 2010 shall be released within a period of two weeks from today. The respondents shall ensure that the monthly emoluments payable to the petitioner shall be punctually paid in the future. - 3 - 10. Having regard to the fact that the charges against the petitioner relate to the year 1998 and the history of the present case, it is directed that the inquiry shall proceed expeditiously and shall be concluded within a reasonable period. The petitioner shall cooperate and facilitate effective completion of inquiry. This writ petition and application are disposed of in the above terms. Dasti to both parties. GITA MITTAL,J VIPIN SANGHI, J MARCH 10, 2010 aa - 4 -