IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S N SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM W.P.NO.41647/2019 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:
1. EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION BY ITS CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSION, MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA, BHAVISHYANIDHIBHAVAN, NO.14, BHIKAJICAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110066, REP BY RPFC-1 SRI. AMIT VASHIST.
2. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, BHAVISHYANIDHIBHAVAN, NO.14, BHIKAJICAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110066.
REP. BY RPFC-1 SRI. AMITH VASHIST.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.NAGA PRASANNA, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.VENKATARAMANA K S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. MANEESHAGNIHOTRI S/O. R.K. AGNIHOTRI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, ZONAL OFFICE DELHI AND UTTRAKHAND BHAVISHYANIDHIBHAVAN VARJIPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, DELHI-110052.
2. UNION OF INDIA TO BE REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHARMA SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.
3. THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE, SHARMA SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P A KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI.C.SHASHIKANTHA, ASG FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 22.8.2019 IN O.A.NO.170/883/2019 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Respondents 2 and 3 in O.A.No.170/00883/2019 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal(for short “Tribunal”) at Bengaluru, have come up in this petition impugning the order dated 22.8.2019 passed therein which is at Annexure-B and also seeking other appropriate reliefs.
2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
The proceedings before the Tribunal is initiated by the first respondent herein who is presently working as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Zonal office, Delhi and Uttrakhand. Admittedly, earlier to these proceedings, he was working as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner at Bengaluru. The confrontation between the first respondent and the petitioners dates back to 2002-03. According to the petitioners herein a large scale suspicious settlement of PF claims involving 47 claims took place in the establishment of petitioners 1 and 2 while the first respondent was working as an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner at Bhopal. It is contended that during the said period in about 47 claims payments were ordered in fake claims on behalf of non-existing employees. The petitioners are said to be cheated to the tune of Rs.1,56,78,880/-. In this behalf, it is stated that a FIR was lodged with the jurisdictional police on 24.6.2005 without naming the persons who are involved in the said offence except stating the offences. This is said to be the beginning.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that after the complaint was registered as FIR on 24.6.2005, the first respondent herein on 11.11.2006 wrote a letter to his higher ups, stating that large scale frauds are committed in the department vis-à-vis referring to the frauds which are already the subject matter of investigation in FIR registered on 24.6.2005. It is the contention of the petitioners that the letter which was written by the first respondent herein is only to protect himself by projecting that he is whistle blower, to avoid being cited as an accused in the said crime. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would bring to the notice of this Court that out of 47 claims where payments were approved, 39 claims were approved by the first respondent for payment as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner of Bhopal at the relevant point of time. According to the petitioners the same would directly point a finger at 1st Respondent indicating that his involvement in the said fraudulent act cannot be ruled out.
4. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners would state that several persons were involved in the said fraud. According to petitioner, 12 persons are already identified and orders are passed in initiating disciplinary proceedings holding them responsible for clearing the said false claims. It is also stated that some of them are penalized by imposing penalty by passing orders on administrative side as well as subjecting them to criminal prosecution. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the first respondent who is equally responsible in the said fraud is trying to project himself as whistle blower to wriggle out of the clutches of law. In furtherance of that, he has been filing petitions in various Tribunals i.e. one petition is filed by him in Delhi in the year 2013 questioning issuance of charge sheet to him. Subsequently, another application is filed by him in Bengaluru while he was functioning as a Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bengaluru, seeking positive direction that no proceedings should be initiated against him, by filing application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench.
5. It is also stated that when he was subsequently shifted to Delhi, once again he filed one more application before the Bengaluru Bench seeking direction to consider his case for further promotion. So far as this petition is concerned, learned Senior Counsel would state that even though there was no prayer seeking interim order directing the authorities to consider his case for promotion, the Tribunal was generous in directing the petitioners to consider his case for promotion subject to the outcome of O.A. by order dated 22.8.2019, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
6. At the same time, the petitioners have also filed another writ petition in W.P.No.41646/2019 challenging the final order passed in the said proceedings wherein a positive direction is issued to the petitioners herein not to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against him. The said writ petition will be considered separately.
7. Insofar as this writ petition is concerned, after hearing the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Naga Prasanna appearing for the petitioners, Sri.P.A. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri.C. Shashikantha, learned ASG, and on going through the order impugned in this petition, it is clearly seen that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in considering the interim prayer in favour of the first respondent in application in O.A.No.170/00883/2019 by order dated 22.8.2019 in directing the petitioners to consider him for promotion subject to the outcome of O.A. The said order is erroneous, inasmuch as there was no prayer to that extent in the application filed by him. While observing thus, this Court would also look into another portion of the same order where there is a further positive direction by the Tribunal in directing the petitioners herein to look into the matter as to whether disciplinary enquiry should be proceeded against him or otherwise. These two orders appear to be erroneous inasmuch as even before the matter is heard on merits such a positive directions could not have been issued by the Tribunal.
8. With the above observation, this petition is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal dated 22.8.2019 in O.A.No.170/00883/2019 is set aside. However, this will not come in the way of the first respondent who is the applicant in the proceedings before the Tribunal to urge all the grounds which are raised in the said application, which will have to be decided on its merits by the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-