Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6524 of 2019 Petitioner :- Davendra Pal Singh Respondent :- Registrar General And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Goyal
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri Krishna Mishra for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Mishra who appears for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Bearing in mind the nature of the order which the Court proposes to pass, notices need not issue to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
This petition impugns a notice dated 15 April 2019 in connection with Preliminary Enquiry No. 03/2019. The preliminary enquiry is stated to have been instituted in respect of a complaint which was made against the petitioner by the fourth respondent in December 2016. In the complaint, the fourth respondent had alleged that the petitioner had obtained moneys and illegal gratification on the promise that he would get certain persons employed in the High Court. The complaint also refers to criminal proceeding initiated at the behest of the fourth respondent numbered as Complaint Case No. 10216 of 2015 in which the petitioner has been named as an accused and is alleged to have committed offences referable to Section 420 IPC. Undisputedly, the petitioner has also been summoned in that case and is yet to surrender. The petitioner undisputedly submitted a reply in response to the compliant which was so made in 2017. In his reply to the notice, the petitioner alluded to a property dispute as existing between him and the fourth respondent and it is consequently alleged that the complaint has been made mala fide. The Court finds itself unable to sustain the challenge to the impugned notice for the following reasons.
Firstly grave and serious allegations had been levelled against the petitioner who is working in the establishment of the Court. The complaint made in 2016 does not appear to have been enquired into till the issuance of the impugned notice in April 2019. The seriousness of the allegations which have been levelled against an employee working in the establishment of this Court clearly merits further enquiry. Regard must also be had to the fact that presently no adverse orders have been passed against the petitioner who has been merely called upon to appear and participate in the Preliminary Enquiry. The matter however cannot end here.
The petitioner has made serious allegations against the third respondent who is arrayed in his personal capacity and is the Registrar General of the Court. The petitioner alleges that the third respondent was habitually obtaining illegal gratification for the purposes of granting appointment on compassionate grounds. These allegations which are made in paragraph-11 of the writ petition are sworn on the basis of record. Despite repeated queries learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to draw the attention of the Court to any record which may have been read in evidence or in support of the allegation made. All that the Court was referred to was a complaint made to the then Registrar General in which allegations similar to those as made in paragraph-11 of the writ petition were reproduced. This complaint, it is pertinent to note, has been made by the petitioner himself. It is thus evident that scurrilous allegations have been made without any basis or justification.
Regard must also be had to the fact that undisputedly appointments on compassionate ground in the establishment of this Court are not made either by the Officer on Special Duty or the Registrar General but by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The gravity of the allegation which is levelled therefore, cannot possibly be ignored.
The allegations of mala fides as levelled against the fourth respondent also prima facie failed to impress the Court. It is relevant to note here that in his response to the complaint, the petitioner had alleged that the fourth respondent had entered into an agreement to till the land owned by the petitioner on payment of consideration. According to Sri Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner it was on account of disputes which arose in this connection that the complaint came to be made. However significantly the land in question which is stated to be owned by the petitioner and his father is situate in Budaun whereas the fourth respondent is a resident of Bareilly. Sri Mishra has proffered no explanation in this respect.The Court must also record that learned counsel was made aware that the Court had found itself unable to find any merit in the allegations of mala fides and that it would therefore, be appropriate for him to withdraw those allegations and argue the petition on merits. However learned counsel insisted upon arguing the petition including on the grounds of mala fides.
Bearing in mind the conduct of the petitioner and the scurrilous nature of allegations which have made irresponsibly and which he has failed to establish and prove, this Court proceeds to dismiss the writ petition with costs of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be recovered from the salary of the petitioner forthwith.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 faraz