Delhi High Court - Orders
Novman Ahmed vs Union Of India, Through Ministry Of ... on 14 May, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~96
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6575/2026
NOVMAN AHMED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukul Rohatagi and Mr. A.K.
Behra, Sr. Advs. with Ms. Sakshi
Kakkar, Mr. Shakti Singh & Mr.
Keshav Singhal, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND
URBAN AFFAIRS & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohit Bansal, CGSC for UOI.
Mr. Dhruv Sharma, GP for UOI.
Mr. Briginder Chahar, ASG with Mr.
R.V. Sinha, Mr. A.S. Singh & Ms.
Shriya Sharma, Advs. for R-2 & R-3
with Mr. Ajay Pandey, DGM-NBCC
& Mr. Vivek Nagi, DGM-HSCC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 14.05.2026 CM APPL.32392/2026
1. For the grounds and reasons stated in the application, the delay of 11 days in re-filing the present petition is condoned.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6575/2026 & CM APPL.32391/2026
3. The Petitioner had been serving with NBCC (India) Ltd./Respondent No. 2 since 2015 and held the position of Executive Director at the relevant time. Subsequently, pursuant to advertisements issued in the years 2020 and 2022, the Petitioner was appointed as the Managing Director of HSCC (India) Ltd./Respondent No. 3, a subsidiary of NBCC (India) Ltd., by order W.P.(C) 6575/2026 Page 1 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 22:30:53 dated 22nd February, 2023.
4. The terms of appointment were communicated to him by letter dated 24th March, 2023, issued with the sanction of the President of India. Clause 1.1 fixed the tenure as five years with effect from 24 th February, 2023, afternoon, or till superannuation or until further orders, whichever was earlier. It also permitted termination of appointment by either side on three months' notice or on payment of three months' salary in lieu thereof. Clause 1.2 contemplated a review of the Petitioner's performance after the expiry of the first year, to enable the Government to take a view on continuance for the balance tenure. Clause 1.16 made the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules framed by the CPSE applicable to the Petitioner, mutatis mutandis, with the modification that the Disciplinary Authority in his case would be the President of India. For ease of reference, the appointment letter is extracted hereinunder:
"Subject: - Appointment of Sh. Novman Ahmed as Managing Director in HSCC (India) Limited- terms and conditions thereof. Sir, I am directed to convey the sanction of the President to the appointment of Mr Novman Ahmed as Managing Director of HSCC India Limited, w.e.f. 24.02.2023 (AN) on the following terms and conditions:-
1.1. Period: The period of his appointment will be for a period of five years w.e.f. 24.02.2023 (AN) or till the date of superannuation or until further orders, whichever event occurs earlier and in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 as amended from time to time. The appointment may, however be terminated even during this period by either side on 3 months' notice or on payment of three months' salary in lieu thereof.
1.2. After the expiry of the first year, the performance of Mr Novman Ahmed will be reviewed to enable the Government to take a view regarding continuance or otherwise for the balance period of his tenure.W.P.(C) 6575/2026 Page 2 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 22:30:53 1.3 Headquarters: His headquarters will be at Noida where the registered office/corporate office/headquarters of the CPSE is located. He will be liable to serve in any part of the country at the discretion of the CPSE. 1.4 Pay: Mr Novman Ahmed will draw a basic pay of Rs.1,60,000 per month in the scale of Rs.160000-290000 from the date of assumption of Office.
1.5 Dearness Allowance: He would be paid DA in accordance with the new IDA scheme as spelt out in the DPE's OM dated 03.08.2017. 1.6 Annual Increment: He will be eligible to draw his annual increment @3% of basic pay on the anniversary date of his appointment in the scale referred to in para 1.4 above and further increments on the same date in subsequent years until the maximum of pay scale is reached. After reaching the maximum of the scale, one stagnation increment equal to the rate of last increment drawn will be granted after completion of every two year period from the date he reaches the maximum of his pay scale provided he gets a performance rating of "Good" or above. He will be granted a maximum of three such stagnat increments.
1.7 House Rent Allowance: He will be entitled to HRA as per the rates indicated in DPE's OMs dated 03.08.2017 & 04.08.2017. 1.8 Residential accommodation and recovery of rent for the accommodation so provided.
1.8.1 Company's own accommodation: Wherever the CPSE has built residential flats in the industrial township or purchased residential flats in the cities, arrangements would be made by the CPSE to provide a suitable residential accommodation to him.
1.8.2 Leased accommodation: If the CPSE is not able to provide residential accommodation either in township or out of the residential flats, purchased by it in the Headquarters, suitable accommodation could be arranged by the CPSE by taking the premises on lease basis at their headquarters. The Board of Directors may decide the size, type and locality of such accommodation as per DPE OMs dated 05.06.2003, 03.08.2017 and 04.08.2017.
1.8.3 Self-lease: If he/she owns a house at the place of his posting and is desirous of taking his own house on self-lease basis for his residential purposes, the CPSE may permit him to do so provided he executes a lease- deed in favour of the CPSE. The Board of Directors may decide the size, type and locality of such accommodation as per DPE OMs dated 05.06.2003, 03.08.2017 and 04.08.2017.
W.P.(C) 6575/2026 Page 3 of 12This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 22:30:53 1.8.4 Repair/maintenance of leased accommodation: The responsibility for repair and maintenance of leased accommodation is that of the Lessor. Lease rent will be allowed only for 12 months in a year and no additional amount will be provided towards repair/maintenance of leased accommodation.
1.8.5 Existing lease deeds: The lease agreement signed by CPSE in respect of the accommodation taken on lease basis for him, if any, prior to 03.08.2017 would not be re-opened during the pendency of the lease period. The lease money, in other words, should not be hiked till the expiry of lease period. This proviso would be applicable even if he had been permitted to take his own house on self-lease basis.
1.8.6 Office accommodation: No office accommodation at the expense of the CPSE would be provided or arranged by the CPSE at his residence. 1.9 Rent Recovery 1.9.1 CPSE's township/own flats: Recovery of rent for the accommodation arranged by the company in its own township or from the pool of flats purchased by it in cities and towns and so allotted to him would be made at the rate spelt out in DPE OM dated 04.08.2017 from 15.01.2020 or the standard rent fixed by the company, whichever is lower. 1.9.2 Lease accommodation: In respect of leased accommodation arranged by the CPSE, rent would be recovered him at the rate spelt out in DPE OM dated 04.08.2017 from 15.01.2020 or the actual rent, whichever is lower.
1.10 Conveyance: He will be entitled to the facility of staff car for private use as indicated below, in terms of DPE OMs dated 21.02.2013 &04.11.2013:
Ceiling on non-duty Name of the City journeys Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai 1000 KM/PM Bengaluru, Hyderabad All the other cities 750 KM/PM Monthly recovery amount (AC/Non AC) for private use/non-duty journeys would be Rs.2000/-PM.
1.11 Leave: He will remain subject to the Leave Rules of the CPSE. 1.12 Club Membership: He will be allowed the Corporate Club Membership (upto maximum of two clubs), co-terminus with his tenure.W.P.(C) 6575/2026 Page 4 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 22:30:53 1.13 Other Allowances/Perks: The Board of Directors will decide on the allowances and perks subject to a ceiling of 35% of his basic pay as indicated in OMs dated 03.08.2017, 04.08.2017 & 07.09.2017. 1.14 Performance Related Payment (PRP): He will be eligible for approved PRP as per OM dated 03.08.2017.
1.15 Superannuation Benefits: He shall be eligible for superannuation benefits based on approved schemes as per OM dated 03.08.2017. 1.16 Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules:
1.16.1 The Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules framed by the CPSE in respect of their below Board level Executives would also mutatis mutandis apply to him with the modification that the Disciplinary Authority in his case would be the President Of India.
1.16.2 The Government also reserves the right not to accept his resignation, if the circumstances so warrant i.e. the disciplinary proceedings are pending or decision has been taken by the Competent Authority to issue a charge sheet to him.
1.17 Restriction on joining Private Commercial Undertakings after Retirement/Resignation 1.17.1 Sh. Novman Ahmed after retirement/resignation from the service of this CPSE shall not accept any appointment or post whether, advisory or administrative, in any form or company whether Indian or foreign, with which the CPSE has or had business relations, within one year from the date of his retirement/resignation, without prior approval of the Government.
1.17.2 In order to secure compliance of these restrictions, CPSE shall secure a bond from him at the time of their employment/retirement/resignation in CPSE for an appropriate sum of money payable by him as damages for any violation of these restrictions in terms of DPE OM No.2(22)/99-GM dated 8th August, 2012. 1.18 Lien: In case, he was holding a below Board level post before his appointment to the Board level post in a CPSE, he will retain lien on their below board level post, if applicable, as per the extant guidelines of DPE/CPSE concerned.
2. In respect of any other item, concerning him which is not covered in preceding paras, he will be governed by the relevant Rules/instructions of the CPSE concerned/Government.W.P.(C) 6575/2026 Page 5 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 22:30:53
3. This issues will the concurrence of the Finance Division vide their Note #218 dated 16.03.2023."
5. The Petitioner completed one year as Managing Director on 24 th February, 2024. The controversy which forms the background of the impugned action arose thereafter. The record placed before the Court indicates that the Petitioner had appointed an Inquiry Officer in disciplinary proceedings relating to "Supply and Delivery of Drugs to the Palestine on behalf of MEA". The Chief Vigilance Officer1 objected to the appointment on the ground that the appointment had been made without prior consultation of the CVO. The CVO's communication dated 30th September, 2025 recorded displeasure and referred to the CVC guidelines dated 1 st August, 2003, which contemplate consultation with the CVO for appointing an Inquiry Office from a panel of inquiry authorities.
6. The Petitioner submits that the said objection by the CVO was thereafter used as the basis for proceedings against him. In this regard, the Petitioner was served with a communication/show cause notice dated 18 th November, 2025, alleging misconduct and calling upon him to furnish his explanation in relation to various issues. The Petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 7th December, 2025. A meeting of the Board of Directors was thereafter held on 11th December, 2025. The decision of the Board was communicated to him by email dated 16th December, 2025. Thereafter, by resolution dated 2nd February, 2026, the Board of Directors divested the Petitioner of his powers as Managing Director. By Office Order dated 4th February, 2026, he was repatriated to Respondent No. 3.
7. Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Central Administrative W.P.(C) 6575/2026 Page 6 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 22:30:53 Tribunal.2 By order dated 27th February, 2026, CAT stayed the operation of the communication dated 2nd February, 2026 as well as Office Order dated 4th February, 2026. In purported compliance with the said order, the Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs,3 issued a communication dated 2nd March, 2026 recording that the Petitioner's joining report had been received. The communication, however, stated that additional charge of the post of Managing Director, HSCC, had already been assigned to Shri Praveer Kumar, Joint Secretary, MoHUA, who would continue to function as Managing Director, HSCC, for all administrative and functional purposes. The Petitioner was permitted to remain in office and coordinate transitional arrangements pending formal relieving or taking-over orders.
8. HSCC also issued an Office Order dated 3rd March, 2026, referring to the Ministry's communication dated 2nd March, 2026. By that order, the Petitioner was requested not to sit in/ occupy the office chamber of the Managing Director, and an alternative seating arrangement was made for him.
9. The interim order passed by the CAT was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) 3162/2026. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition, holding that CAT lacked jurisdiction to entertain the original application filed by the Petitioner. It was observed that absence of jurisdiction is a fundamental and incurable defect and that the proceedings before the Tribunal were not maintainable. The orders dated 23 rd February, 2026 and 27th February, 2026 passed by CAT were accordingly set aside.
1"CVO"2
"CAT"W.P.(C) 6575/2026 Page 7 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 22:30:53
10. The Petitioner carried the matter to the Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13878/2026. The Supreme Court observed that although an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 may not have been maintainable before CAT, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable against the order of termination. The Petitioner was accordingly granted liberty to approach this Court in writ jurisdiction. All points on merits were kept open.
11. The present writ petition has been filed pursuant to the liberty granted by the Supreme Court.
12. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. A.K. Behera, Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submit that the orders dated 2nd February, 2026 and 4th February, 2026 deserve to be stayed during the pendency of the present proceedings. They submit that the action is punitive in substance, though presented as a termination simpliciter or repatriation. No disciplinary inquiry has been held. The Petitioner had merely appointed an independent Inquiry Officer, a former Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in relation to matters concerning NBCC and certain officers. The objection raised by the CVO to that appointment has culminated in this impugned action. It is further submitted that Clause 1.16 of the appointment letter expressly applies the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules to the Petitioner. Therefore, once the action is founded on alleged misconduct, the Petitioner could not have been removed without adherence to the disciplinary procedure.
13. Mr. Brijinder Chahar, Additional Solicitor General, appearing with Mr. R.V. Sinha for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, opposes the request for interim 3 "MoHUA"
W.P.(C) 6575/2026 Page 8 of 12This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 22:30:53 relief. He submits that the Petitioner retained a lien on his post in NBCC and has merely been repatriated to the post which he held before his appointment as Managing Director, HSCC. According to the Respondents, the order is not punitive. It is urged that, in any event, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice because a show cause notice was issued, the Petitioner replied to it, and the competent authority considered the reply before taking the impugned decision. It is also submitted that grant of interim relief at this stage would create administrative difficulty, as additional charge of Managing Director, HSCC, is presently being held by the Joint Secretary, MoHUA.
14. This Court has considered the aforenoted circumstances. Ordinarily, courts are slow in staying an order of termination or in granting an interim order which has the effect of reinstatement. Such relief, at an interlocutory stage, is not granted as a matter of course. At the same time, there is no absolute bar on the exercise of such jurisdiction where the facts disclose a strong prima facie case, where the action appears to carry a punitive foundation, and where withholding protection would render the eventual remedy illusory. The distinction between an order which is merely motivated by certain circumstances and an order which is founded on allegations of misconduct is well recognised. If the latter character is prima facie disclosed, the protection of a regular disciplinary process cannot be avoided by describing the action as termination simpliciter or repatriation.
15. The sequence of events requires closer examination. The Petitioner was issued a show cause notice alleging misconduct. His reply was considered. The Board thereafter found the reply unsatisfactory. The Petitioner's powers as Managing Director were then withdrawn by the W.P.(C) 6575/2026 Page 9 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 22:30:53 resolution dated 2nd February, 2026, followed by the order dated 4 th February, 2026 terminating his appointment and repatriating him. Although the impugned order is couched as one of repatriation, the effect thereof is not merely a transfer back to the parent organisation, but a reversion from the post of Managing Director, HSCC, to the position of Executive Director in NBCC, which the Petitioner held prior to his selection and appointment through a separate selection process. Prima facie, therefore, the impugned action does not appear to be wholly divorced from the allegations which formed the subject matter of the show cause notice. Whether the action is ultimately to be treated as a simpliciter termination under the tenure clause, or as one founded on misconduct requiring a formal disciplinary inquiry, is a matter which will require a fuller consideration after pleadings are complete. At this stage, however, the Petitioner has raised a substantial issue which cannot be brushed aside.
16. Clause 1.16 of the appointment letter also assumes significance. It makes the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules applicable to the petitioner, with the President of India as the Disciplinary Authority. This clause, when read with the material presently on record, lends prima facie weight to the Petitioner's contention that where the action proceeds on alleged misconduct, the applicable disciplinary framework could not be bypassed merely by invoking the tenure or "until further orders" clause. Pertinently, the communication/show cause notice dated 18th November, 2025 itself contemplated that failure to respond satisfactorily may entail disciplinary action in accordance with the applicable rules. Despite the same, no formal disciplinary proceedings, as contemplated under the applicable Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, appear to have been W.P.(C) 6575/2026 Page 10 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 22:30:53 initiated prior to the passing of the impugned orders.
17. The balance of convenience also requires a carefully tailored order. The Petitioner seeks stay of the impugned orders. The Respondents point out that the additional charge of Managing Director, HSCC, is presently being discharged by the Joint Secretary, MoHUA, and that any direction restoring full functional charge to the Petitioner may cause administrative difficulty. This Court is conscious of that concern. At the same time, permitting the impugned termination to operate without any protection, despite the prima facie features noticed above, may seriously prejudice the Petitioner before the matter is examined on affidavits.
18. The arrangement which came into existence pursuant to the Ministry's communication dated 2nd March, 2026 and the Office Order dated 3rd March, 2026 is, in substance, a limited interim arrangement. It does not restore the Petitioner to full functional charge as Managing Director. It permits the existing administrative arrangement to continue while allowing the Petitioner to remain in office under the conditions recorded therein. Although the orders of CAT have since been set aside for want of jurisdiction, this Court, in exercise of its independent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and in view of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, considers it appropriate to continue the same limited arrangement as an ad interim measure.
19. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the arrangement reflected in the communication dated 2nd March, 2026 issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and the Office Order dated 3rd March, 2026 issued by HSCC (India) Limited shall continue. The Petitioner shall not claim, on the strength of this order, a right to discharge full administrative or functional W.P.(C) 6575/2026 Page 11 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 22:30:53 powers of Managing Director, HSCC, unless otherwise directed by this Court. The present arrangement shall remain subject to further orders and shall not create any equity in favour of either side.
20. Issue notice. Counsel for the Respondents, mentioned in the appearance above, accept notice.
21. The Respondents shall file their counter affidavits within six weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, shall be filed within four weeks thereafter.
22. Re-notify on 11th August, 2026.
SANJEEV NARULA, J MAY 14, 2026/ab W.P.(C) 6575/2026 Page 12 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 22:30:53