Central Vigilance Commission v. Ajoy Kumar Singh & ORS

$~29 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 2295/2018 & C.M. Nos. 9506-07/2018 CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate.

versus AJOY KUMAR SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Harsh Pandit and Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Shahi, Advocates for R-2 & R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 13.03.2018 1.

The petitioner/CVC is aggrieved by the order dated 25.4.2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 963/2017 filed by the respondent No.1 as also the rejection order dated 02.11.2017 passed in R.A. No. 191/2017 filed by CVC for seeking review of the order dated 25.4.20147.

2.

Vide order dated 25.4.2017, the Tribunal had disposed of O.A. No. 963/2017 filed by the respondent No.1 at the stage of admission itself by issuing directions to the petitioner/CVC to take a decision on the pending representation of the respondent No.1 dated 7.1.2017 and his supplementary representation within two months from the date of receipt of the supplementary representation.

W.P.(C) 2295/2018

3.

A perusal of the paper book reveals that the petitioner/CVC has already implemented the directions issued vide order dated 25.4.2017, by passing a speaking order on 29.11.2017, rejecting the representations dated 07.1.2017 and 15.5.2017 submitted by the respondent No.1, under intimation to him.

4.

In such circumstances, nothing survives for adjudication in the present petition. The petitioner has already given effect to the order dated 25.4.2017. If the petitioner/CVC has a grievance that it is not expected to interact directly with the employees of the UOI, then it ought to have taken such a plea before the Tribunal or at least in the contempt proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 against it for seeking implementation of the impugned order dated 25.4.2017. That aspect cannot be gone into at this stage when the petitioner has already complied with the impugned order, without reserving its rights.

5.

The petition is accordingly disposed of along with the pending applications.

HIMA KOHLI, J PRATIBHA RANI, J MARCH 13, 2018 ap/na W.P.(C) 2295/2018