Santokh Singh v. Union Of India

$~23 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 7228/2016 and C.M.No.29744/2016 (stay) SANTOKH SINGH ..... Petitioner Through:

Petitioner in person.

versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through:

Mr.Akshay Makhija, CGSC., Mr.Sanjugeeta and Ms.Mahima Behl, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

O R D E R

% 19.08.2016 The O.A. filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 25th January, 2016. The petitioner retired from service on 31st January, 2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. In the O.A. filed, he sought a direction for release of his retiral benefits as also salary for the period 29th November, 2010 to 17th January, 2011 with other related reliefs.

The petitioner also complains that although according to the respondent, a fresh charge memo dated 8th July, 2014 had been issued after three years of his retirement, but the petitioner claims that he has not been served with any such charge memo. The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that although the Tribunal has quashed the first inquiry and also

directed release of pensionary benefits to him less amount of provisional pension already paid to him with interest @ 9% per annum, but no reasons have been given as to why the second inquiry has not been quashed. The petitioner submits that at this stage, he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondent that in case the second inquiry is to be continued, he should be provided with all the relevant papers and documents including the memo of charge. He also prays that in case the documents are supplied he should be permitted to raise all grounds as raised in this writ petition at the appropriate stage.

Mr.Akshay Makhija, learned counsel for the respondent, who has entered appearance on advance copy, submits that although he does not have any specific instructions in this matter, but at the time of initiation of any inquiry all relevant papers and documents are supplied to the officer which would also have been supplied to the present petitioner. However, to cut short the controversy, he submits that another set would be supplied to the petitioner at the address mentioned in this writ petition by speed post. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of, as prayed for by the petitioner. Leave as prayed granted to the petitioner to raise all grounds as raised in this writ petition at the appropriate stage. G.S.SISTANI, J I.S.MEHTA, J AUGUST 19, 2016 'dc'