UNION OF INDIA & ORS.  Vs SHRI SHUSHIL KUMAR AGGARWAL

W.P. (C) 97/2021 Page 1 of 3
$~Suppl. -7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 97/2021 & CM APPLs.289 – 92/2021
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …..Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate.
Versus
SHRI SHUSHIL KUMAR AGGARWAL …..Respondent
Through: Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate with
Ms. Shubhi Srivastava, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

% Date of Decision: 13
th January, 2021

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON’BLE M S. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN , J
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. : (Oral)
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17th
July, 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal
Bench, New Delhi in Original Application being OA No. 3157/2017 titled as “Sushil Kumar Agga rwal v UoI ”. Petitioner further prays for a direction to
restore the charge memorandum dated 27
th April 2017 and letter bearing
2021:DHC:142-DBW.P. (C) 97/2021 Page 2 of 3
F.No. C -14011/16/2017 – V&L dated 28th
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitio ner submits that the CAT has passed
the impugned order without considering the fact that disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the Respondent by way of Charge
Memorandum and Letter dated 28 August 2017 issued by Petitioner
No. 2 to the Respondent.
th
4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent states that the present
writ petition has become infructuous as the impugned judgment has already
been implemented inasmuch as the respondent has been paid his retirement
benefits on 23 August, 2017 is a procedure devised to
ensure a fair, objective and unbiased assessment of the case against the
Respondent by the Petitioners and the CAT erred in setting aside the
disciplinary proceedings at a nascent stage, without awaiting the outcome of
the same.
rd October, 2020 in pursuance to the vigilance clearance dated
15th
5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
respondent had granted conditional vigilance clearance to the petitioner subject to any order to be passed in appeal or in the present proceedings. June, 2020.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused
the statement of articles of charge framed against the respondent.
7. It finds that the respondent had passed the order in a quasi -judicial
capacity and the only al legation against him is that he had ignored the
decision of the jurisdiction al High Court while passing the appellate order.
However, it is not the case of the petitioner that the High Court or any other
superior forum had given any finding of misfeasance or malfeasance against
2021:DHC:142-DBW.P. (C) 97/2021 Page 3 of 3
the respondent/officer. In fact, there is no allegation that the order is tainted
by fraud or illegal gratification.
8. It is pertinent to mention that the order in appeal was passed by the
respondent No. 1 on 30th
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the impugned order calls for no
interference in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition and
applications stand dismissed. April, 2009 and thereafter, he was promoted to the
post of Principal Commissioner in 2015. It was just two days before his
retirement that the petitioner was issued the impugned articles of charge.
10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be
also forwarded to the learned counsel through e -mail.

MANMOHAN, J

ASHA MENON, J
JANUARY 13, 2021
TS

2021:DHC:142-DB