2025:UHC:5369-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB/278/2014 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. 1. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rahul Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. Bhupendra Bisht, Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 2 to 6. 4. Petitioner, who was serving as Chief Engineer in Uttarakhand Peyjal Sanshadan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam (in short “Peyjal Nigam”) was appointed by selection as Managing Director in Peyjal Nigam in the year 2012. His appointment as Managing Director was set aside by Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that the three charge sheets issued to the petitioner were not placed before the Selection Committee. The judgment dated 27.08.2013 rendered by Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7706 of 2013 (Bhajan Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & others) is reported in (2013) 14 SCC 32, relevant extract whereof is reproduced below:- “9. It was pointed out that the first charge-sheet was framed on 5-12-2011 which contained three serious charges with respect to the irregularities committed by Respondent 4 as the Member- Secretary of the Zonal Tender Committee when he was the Executive Engineer in the Construction Division, Pauri, during 1-6-1995 to 19-7-2007. Charge 1 thereof alleged of not complying with the departmental procedure for deciding the tenders concerning the work of laying and jointing of pipelines and appurtenant works from Nanghat source to Molthaghat under Nanghat Potable Water Supply Scheme, resulting into avoidable delay in reaching the benefits of 2025:UHC:5369-DB the scheme to the general public. Charge 2 was regarding the procedure for inviting, opening and acceptance of the tenders and non-compliance thereof requiring re-tendering, concerning the same Nanghat Potable Water Supply Scheme, resulting into cost overrun and time overrun. Charge 3 was regarding the manner in which the technical bids were decided concerning the said scheme, ultimately resulting into loss of Rs 49.17 lakhs to the Nigam and benefiting the contractors. These objections were raised in the audit report of 2008-2009 and accepted by the Accountant General. This charge-sheet called upon Respondent 4 to inform the undersigning inquiry officer in writing whether he wanted to examine or cross-examine any witness. Evidence in support of the charges was mentioned along with the charges. The charge-sheet also required Respondent 4 to submit written statement. The charge-sheet was signed by the inquiry officer for and on behalf of the Nigam, and was approved by the Chairman of the said Nigam, whose approval and signatures are also to be seen by the side of the signatures of the inquiry officer. 10. It is material to note that no reply was filed to this charge-sheet by Respondent 4. The Selection Committee met on 2-5-2012 and Respondent 4 was recommended for being appointed by its recommendation dated 3-5- 2012. It was specifically mentioned in Para 4 of the writ petition that the second charge-sheet was dated 3-3-2012 concerning the working of Respondent 4 during the period 18-9-2000 to 19- 7-2007 in respect of Birokhal Group of Villages Pumping Water Supply Scheme and the third charge-sheet dated 9-4-2012 was concerning the scheme of utilisation of sewage for irrigation purpose for the Veer Chander Singh Garhwali Audyogik University during 18-11-2000 to 30-6- 2007. The submission on behalf of the appellant was that this material, namely, that the charge- sheets were pending against Respondent 4, was not placed before the Selection Committee at all. There is no dispute, whatsoever, that Respondent 4 had not replied to the charge- sheets nor with respect to the fact that pendency of the charge-sheets against Respondent 4, was not brought to the notice of the Selection Committee. The Division Bench of the High Court has given importance only to the aspect of seniority of the engineers concerned, and although the issue with respect to the integrity of the officer, to be appointed to the high position of Managing Director, was raised in this writ petition, the same has been decided against all canons of settled laws. 2025:UHC:5369-DB 15. It is not possible to accept this submission. The charges in the charge-sheet are concerning the period starting from 2006 onwards. Whatever was the defence of Respondent 4, he ought to have replied to the charge-sheet, and he could not have decided it for himself that since according to him, the charge-sheet was not issued by the disciplinary authority, he was going to ignore the same. Nothing prevented him from placing on record his viewpoint that the charge-sheets were motivated. That apart, as is seen from the record, the Chairman of the Nigam had signed on the charge-sheet approving the same and it is, therefore, that the inquiry officer had issued the charge-sheet. The Chairman of the Nigam is the Secretary of the Water Supply Department. He had taken some three months' time after the note was put up to him, to approve the charge- sheet. He was also a member of the Selection Committee which consisted of 5 senior officers of the State. It was surely expected of him to bring it to the notice of the Selection Committee that charge-sheets were pending against Respondent 4. Respondent 4 may have his defence on the merits of the charges. All that we can say is that the fact of pending charge-sheets ought to have been placed before the Selection Committee. In the absence of such a very vital material being placed before the Selection Committee, the Committee went into the aspect of determining the merit without having the benefit of this vital material which was against Respondent 4. If these charge-sheets were made available to the Committee, it would have taken its decision after considering the same, and the principles laid down by this Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman [Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 387 : (1993) 23 ATC 322] would have squarely applied to Respondent 4's case. His claim for promotion would have been kept in a sealed cover and he would have been asked to wait until the enquiry was complete. 19. It was also submitted that the charge- sheet dated 5-12-2011 was in fact a show-cause notice. We are not impressed at all by this submission which is in fact negated by the second affidavit of Shri S. Raju. In any case, whether it was a charge-sheet or a show-cause notice, it was a document imputing allegations against Respondent 4. When any high officer is to be appointed to the position of Managing Director, obviously his integrity has to be gone into and the material whichever is there, either in 2025:UHC:5369-DB his favour or against him, has to be placed before the Selection Committee. The Chairman of the Nigam has certainly not conducted himself appropriately in not placing these charge-sheets before the Selection Committee. In absence thereof, the merit (including absence of it) which was required to be assessed could not be assessed correctly. 22. We are equally or more appalled at the manner in which the Division Bench concerned of the High Court has handled the matter. The High Court has totally ignored the law on this aspect. The relevant Rule 5 was brought to the notice of the High Court. Submissions were made thereon, and yet the High Court held that the law permitted the selectors to ignore altogether the charges inasmuch as according to the Division Bench, the same bears only an accusation against him and that the integrity of a person cannot be questioned only on the basis of an allegation against him. As stated earlier we are not concerned with the merits of the allegations. The Selection Committee was not apprised of the three charge-sheets at all. This was clearly in breach of Rule 5, and the High Court has erred in ignoring this aspect. 23. In view of these facts, the selection of Respondent 4 was clearly faulted. The selection was in breach of the requirements of Rule 5 and, therefore, it will have to be set aside. The High Court has also seriously erred in not allowing the writ petition of the appellant herein. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court. 24. Prayer A made in the writ petition will stand granted, namely, that the selection and appointment of Respondent 4 will stand set aside. Inasmuch as Respondent 4 has worked all this time as Managing Director, whatever salary and emoluments he has received, though on the basis of a faulty selection, will not be recovered from him. However, as a consequence of this order, he will now be immediately placed in the position which he was occupying prior to his selection as Managing Director of the Nigam. It will be for the Nigam to call for another Selection Committee and consider whosoever are the eligible officers. Their full record will be placed before the Selection Committee, and thereafter it will be decided as to who should be selected as the Managing Director of the Nigam. 25. The appeal is allowed in these terms, 2025:UHC:5369-DB with costs. Respondent 4 will pay costs of Rs 50,000 and Respondent 2 Nigam will pay costs of Rs 50,000 to the appellant. Respondent 2 will be at liberty to recover this amount of costs from the then Chairman of the Nigam. 26. Before we conclude, we must accord our distress and shock at the manner in which the facts have unfolded in this matter. The public corporations like the Water Supply and Sewerage Board enter into the contracts of hundreds of crores of rupees. The persons occupying high positions therein such as that of Managing Director have a great responsibility to see to it that these schemes are implemented honestly and expeditiously. After 67 years of Independence, Indian cities and villages continue to have a serious problem of getting good potable water to drink. There is also a serious problem of having a proper sewerage system. The officers at the high level have a good salary and perquisites. They have got to be above board. To qualify for promotion to such posts, the minimum that is expected is to have an unblemished record. The law and procedure of selection to such posts when there are allegations against the candidates, was laid down in Jankiraman case [Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 387 : (1993) 23 ATC 322] , way back in the year 1991. If the high-ranking officers come out with a devise to circumvent the law by suppressing the pending charge-sheets against favoured candidate, it is a serious matter. The Chairman is supposed to be an IAS officer. These officers are given a protection under the Constitution itself. If such officers are to act in breach of the law laid down by this Court, it would result into officers of doubtful integrity getting into higher positions. Luckily, in this present matter, the petitioner who is an interested candidate contested the appointment of Respondent 4 and which is how the suppression of the material came into light. 27. Having decried the role of the then Chairman of the Nigam, we cannot remain oblivious of the fact that a Division Bench presided over by the Chief Justice of the High Court has condoned such serious breaches in approving the suppression of the relevant material from the Selection Committee, which is most unfortunate and deplorable to say the least. Such judgments would lead to the approval of the appointment of persons of doubtful integrity in higher administrative positions. Apart from that, it will lead the people to doubt the integrity of the Judges as well. Citizens have a faith in the 2025:UHC:5369-DB judiciary because it is expected to render justice even-handedly. The members of higher judiciary are granted a constitutional protection so that they function without fear and favour and not misapply the law. It is such orders which bring the judiciary into disrepute. We rather refrain from saying anything more.” 5. In terms of the judgment rendered by Apex Court, petitioner was reverted back as Chief Engineer (Level-II) w.e.f. 12.09.2013 and he thereafter retired from service on 31.10.2013. 6. By a letter dated 13.05.2014 issued by General Manager, Peyjal Nigam, petitioner was informed that in view of pendency of four disciplinary proceedings against him, it is not possible to release his dues. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed this writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:- (i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned letter dated 13.05.2014 issued by the Respondent No. 3 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) (ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to forthwith release the outstanding retiral benefits to the petitioner forthwith, details whereof is given in Para 17 of the Writ Petition. (iii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to pay interest on the delayed payment at a rate to be specified by this Hon’ble Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner retired in 2013, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to immediately release his retiral dues. He further submits that because of delay in releasing the retiral dues, petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment. He relies upon 2025:UHC:5369-DB judgments rendered by coordinate Bench in WPSB No. 511 of 2018, WPSB No. 5 of 2020 and WPSB No. 490 of 2021 in support of his contention regarding interest. 8. Mr. Bhupendra Bisht, learned counsel appearing for Peyjal Nigam, however, has drawn our attention to the counter affidavit dated 18.11.2014 filed by Mr. G.C. Pandey, Superintending Engineer, Nainital Circle, where it is stated that because of the illegalities committed by the petitioner, Peyjal Nigam suffered loss running into several crores of rupees. In para 7 of the said affidavit, it is stated that despite the observation made by Apex Court, petitioner is not cooperating with the Enquiry Officer and is causing delay in disposal of the enquiry proceedings. 9. Learned counsel for Peyjal Nigam has also drawn our attention to order dated 10.10.2014 passed by coordinate Bench in a writ petition filed by Peyjal Nigam, which is numbered as WPSB No. 354 of 2014. By the said writ petition, Peyjal Nigam had sought a direction to the Competent Authority to expedite the disciplinary enquiry pending against the petitioner. 10. Mr. Bhupender Bisht, learned counsel for Peyjal Nigam has also drawn our attention to the orders passed in this writ petition by coordinate Bench on 06.09.2018 and 10.12.2018, whereby time was granted to conclude the disciplinary enquiries against the petitioner. He submits that petitioner himself was causing delay in conclusion of the enquiry and the delay is attributable to him, therefore, he cannot take benefit of his own wrong by 2025:UHC:5369-DB claiming interest on delayed payment of his dues. 11.(i)Peyjal Nigam has filed an affidavit in support of time extension application in December, 2018, in which it is mentioned that there are four disciplinary enquiries pending against the petitioner; in the first enquiry, in respect of Kailad Drinking Water Scheme, enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and he was asked to give reply, but instead of giving reply he filed a Claim Petition No. 08/N.B/D.B./2015 before Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by petitioner and quashed the charge sheet and the Enquiry Authority was permitted to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law. Thus, it is submitted that in terms of judgment, rendered by learned Tribunal, fresh charge sheet was issued to petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority on 18.06.2016 and petitioner has not replied to the afresh charge sheet. (ii) Regarding enquiry, in respect of tender process of Nanghat Peyjal Scheme, it is stated that the Enquiry Officer submitted report, which was served upon petitioner asking him to give reply by 25.10.2018, however, petitioner is not cooperating and he has not submitted reply, within the given time. (iii) Regarding third enquiry, in respect of construction work of Bironkhal Village Joint Pumping Scheme, it is stated that as per conclusion recorded by Enquiry Officer, due to irregularities committed by the petitioner, Peyjal Nigam has suffered loss amounting to ₹2,49,168/- and the Chairman of Peyjal Nigam has to 2025:UHC:5369-DB pass necessary order. (iv) Regarding fourth enquiry, in respect of irregularities committed by the petitioner in the Scheme, it is stated that prima facie petitioner was found to have raised construction without approval from the Competent Authority, thereby diverting the funds without getting approval of revised estimate and breaching the necessary conditions of the Government Order. It is further stated that petitioner spent funds amounting to ₹173.11 lakh on other heads, constructing only four tanks as against proposed 25 tanks and also constructed unnecessary protection wall causing a loss of ₹1,48,925.40 to the Department. It is further stated that Chairman has appointed Sri Arjun Singh, Additional Secretary, Government of Uttarkahand to conduct re-enquiry and submit his report, within one month. 12. Mr. Bhupender Bisht, learned counsel appearing for Peyjal Nigam thus contends that as petitioner himself is instrumental in causing delay in disposal of the disciplinary enquiries pending against him, therefore, the grievance raised by him in his writ petition is without any substance and his claim for interest is, thus, unsustainable in the eyes of law. 13. Learned counsel for Peyjal Nigam, on instructions, submits that the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioner have concluded and three punishment orders were passed against him in 2019; first order was passed on 11.03.2019, whereby a sum of ₹1,04,925/- was ordered to be recovered from him; thereafter another order was passed on 11.03.2019, whereby a sum of 2025:UHC:5369-DB ₹25,922/- was ordered to be recovered from him; thereafter another order was passed on 01.05.2019, whereby a sum of ₹22,339/- was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner. He further submits that in the fourth disciplinary enquiry, charge was not proved against petitioner and the final order was passed on 10.08.2022. Thus, he submits that as disciplinary proceedings were continuing against petitioner till 10.08.2022, therefore, it was not possible to release his monetary dues. 14. From the admission made by learned counsel for Peyjal Nigam, it is apparent that all the disciplinary enquiries initiated against petitioner have now concluded. Therefore, respondents are under the duty to release the retiral dues to the petitioner, if already not released, without any further delay. 15. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority in the Peyjal Nigam to release all outstanding dues to petitioner, within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. If the retiral dues are not released within the stipulated time, then petitioner shall be entitled to simple interest at the rate of six percent per annum w.e.f. 10.08.2022, on such delayed payment of retiral dues. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 25.06.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d13695 12ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1 FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.07.04 01:38:29 -07'00'