Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Nikhil Kumar vs Home Affairs on 23 September, 2025
1
Item No. 45/ C-1 O.A. No. 3417/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 3417/2024
This the 23rdday of September, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Nikhil Kumar
S/o Shri Sudhir Kumar
Aged 48 years
R/o V-1, Satya Niketan
Madhu Limaye Marg
Chanakyapuri
New Delhi-110021
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ankur Chhibber)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions
Government of India
North Block
New Delhi-110001
3. The Joint Secretary (UT)
Minsitry of Home Affairs
Government of India
North Block
New Delhi-110001.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Rajeev Kumar)
2
Item No. 45/ C-1 O.A. No. 3417/2024
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman By way of the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:
"(i) To quash and set aside the Memorandum dated 25.04.2024 and the consequential proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.1 under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, whereby the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the Applicant after more than 9 years of incident and with complete non-application of mind; and
(ii) To direct the Respondents to exonerate the Applicant of the charge leveled against him and drop the proceedings, if any pending against the applicant in interest of justice and equity."
2. The applicant is an IAS Officer of the 2002 AGMUT Cadre. Between 2004 to 2009, he was posted to serve at the state of Mizoram till the year 2013. Thereafter, he was posted as Secretary, New Delhi Municipal Council and was reporting to the Chairperson, NDMC, Shri Jalaj Shrivastava, IAS (AGMUT: 1984). The controversy revolves around the recovery of dues of M/s. CJ International Hotels Ltd. (Hotel Le Meridian) at New Delhi.
3. CJ International Hotels Ltd. is the owner of a five star hotel being run under the name of Hotel Le Meridien. The hotel is constructed on a plot of land bearing no. 8, Windsor Place, New Delhi. The land on which the hotel is constructed was taken from NDMC on licence basis for which a licence agreement dated 16.4.1981 was executed between the NDMC and M/s. Pure Drinks, New Delhi Limited. This agreement was substituted by another 3 Item No. 45/ C-1 O.A. No. 3417/2024 licence agreement dated 14.07.1982 between CJ International Hotels Ltd. and the NDMC. It was the stand of the CJ International Hotels Ltd. that this agreement has been modified by few subsequent agreements. However, according to NDMC, the parties continued to be governed by the agreement dated 14.07.1982 and by the subsequent agreements only indulgence was shown to the CJ International Hotels Ltd. to make payment of licence fee in installments.
4. In on about 1989, a sum of more than Rs. 6 crores became due from the CJ International Hotels Ltd. to NDMC and notice dated 07.12.1989, was therefore, sent by the NDMC to the CJ International Hotels Ltd. to make payment of the arrears of licence fee amounting to Rs.6,84,091,331.89 paise. The CJ International Hotels Ltd. was also called upon to show cause as to why the allotment/licence of the hotel site in question be not cancelled due to non-payment of the licence fee besides disconnection of electricity supply and taking action under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. By another letter dated 06.03.1990, the NDMC called upon the CJ International Hotels Ltd. to stop the use of the plot of land alongwith construction raised thereon for any purpose whatsoever and hand over vacant possession of the same to the NDMC and to pay the amount of more than Rs.13 crores being the arrears of licence fee and other charges.
4
Item No. 45/ C-1 O.A. No. 3417/2024
5. In the above background, the CJ International Hotels Ltd. filed a Suit, being Suit No. 1193/1990 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for appointment of an arbitrator. An application was filed in this suit for an ad-interim injunction. This application was dismissed on 16.10.1990. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred against the judgment and during the pendency of the appeal, a supplementary agreement was executed on 11.03.1991. Further, supplementary agreements dated 04.08.1995 and 31.03.1998 were also executed. In light of these agreements, appeals came to be disposed of.
6. The CJ International Hotels Ltd. did not honour the above said agreements and, therefore, the NDMC was compelled to issue Show Cause Notices dated 20.06.199 and 12.11.1999. These notices were challenged by the CJ International Hotels Ltd. by filing Writ Petition No. 7163/1995. This Writ Petition was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 07.03.2000. The CJ International Hotels Ltd. preferred Suit No. 610/2000 for specific performance of the agreement dated 14.07.1982 as allegedly modified by the agreements dated 11.03.1991, 04.08.1995 and 31.03.1998. In this Suit, the CJ International Hotels Ltd. filed an application no. 3075/2000 for Temporary Injunction. This interim application was decided by the Learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court by the order dated 18.05.2001. The Learned Single Judge 5 Item No. 45/ C-1 O.A. No. 3417/2024 disposed of the application by restraining NDMC from interfering with the process of the possession of the plantiffs over the land and building situated at 1, Winsdor Place, Janpath, New Delhi in any manner whatsoever and from disconnecting, withholding or causing to be withheld any amenities including water and/or electricity to the CJ International Hotels Ltd. hotel, subject to the hotel depositing entire licence fee in the manner directed in the said order, calculated at the rate of 21% of the gross turnover of the hotel arrived at on the basis of the observations made in the order. It was also opined that the CJ International Hotels Ltd.will pay all this amount calculated for the time being at the rate of 10% per annum.
7. The manner under which the licence fee was required to be deposited by the CJ International Hotels Ltd. was specified in the earlier para of the above order which reads as follows:
" Since, in my opinion, none of the supplementary agreements modified the terms of the agreement of 14th July, 1982 providing for payment of licence fee @ 21% of the gross turn over of the hotel, plaintiff are, prima facie, liable to pay licence fee 21% of the gross turnover to be calculated on the basis of the gross turnover as mentioned in the balance sheets filed on record by the plaintiffs and deducting from this turnover the amount to be calculated in terms of the aforesaid paragraph. The plaintiff being prima-facie liable to pay licence fee at the rate of 21% of the gross turn over of the hotel, in my opinion, there is no question of the plaintiff suffering irreparable loss in case it has to pay the licence fee in terms of the agreement. Defendant-NDMC is a civic authority and for purposes of providing service to the people it requires funds. Public benefit in the present case outweighs the case of the plaintiffs in withholding the amount legitimately due to the NDMC. Balance of convenience clearly lies in favour of the larger public interest 6 Item No. 45/ C-1 O.A. No. 3417/2024 rather than In favour of the plaintiffs. The only indulgence to which the plaintiffs may be entitled is to pay the arrears of licence fee in instalments. Since the amount which may be calculated an the basis of the above formula may be quite heavy, the plaintiffs will be at liberty to deposit the said amount in four equal quarterly instalments, first of which will be paid within three weeks from the date of this Order".
8. From the above order of the Learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court, it was clear that the CJ International Hotels Ltd. was directed to deposit licence fee at the rate of 21% of the gross turnover of the hotel arrived at on the basis of the observations referred to herein above. The question was what was the gross turnover?
9. On 10.02.2015, a meeting headed by the Chairman, NDMC was convened to ascertain the licence fee payable by the CJ International Hotels Ltd. Sh. Jalaj Shrivastava, Chairperson, NDMC, Sh. R K Gaur, Director (Estate), NDMC, Sh. Himanshu Ranjan, Deputy Director (Estate) NDMC amd Sh. Tarun Thakral, C.O.O, M/s CJ International Hotels Ltd. participated in the said meeting. In this meeting, a decision was arrived about the removal of certain heads of the charges from the gross turnover/ net reciepts of the hotel in order to compute 21% of it as a licence fee in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 18.05.2001 in C.S. (OS) N0. 610/2000. The Committee headed by the Chairman, NDMC, gave an interpretation of the order of the Hon'ble High Court and, accordingly, took a decision to even remove licence fee as claimed by the hotel from its outlet 7 Item No. 45/ C-1 O.A. No. 3417/2024 and room rentals from its gross turnover. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant, though Secretary of NDMC, was not present in the meeting and neither he signed the minutes of the meeting held on 10.02.2015.
10. Thereafter, another meeting was held on 26.02.2015. This meeting was also headed by the Chairman, NDMC in which calculations were made by the Estate Account Branch, NDMC, after the calculations were submitted by M/s CJ International Hotels Ltd., which were drawn after including the heads of room, rental licence fee, and outlay receivable as heads eligible to be deducted from gross turnover. In this meeting, the amount of the licence fee was ascertained and fixed at Rs. 150.92 crores of rupees (Rs. 75.46 crores as arrears plus Rs. 75.46 crores as interest). It is the case of the applicant that though his name figures at serial no. 3 of the minutes of the said meeting, he neither participated in the meeting nor signed the minutes of the meeting.
11. In pursuance of the decision arrived at in the meeting dated 26.02.2015, letters dated 02.03.2015 and 26.03.2015 were written by the Chairman, NDMC to the M/s CJ International Hotels Ltd. for deposition of the amount arrived at the said meeting. M/s CJ International Hotels thereafter, filed an application before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS (OS) No. 610/2000 for a decree of compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC. The Learned 8 Item No. 45/ C-1 O.A. No. 3417/2024 Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court, thereafter, passed a decree in terms of the correspondence between the parties by the order dated 21.04.2015 (Annexure A-6).
12. The above fact was brought to the knowledge of the applicant on 30.04.2015. The applicant, thereafter, raised an objection and gave an opinion that the interpretation of the order dated 18.05.2001 was not correct as decided in meetings dated 10.02.2015 and 26.02.2015 and recommended that an application for recall of the order dated 21.04.2015 may be filed. It is a matter of record that, thereafter, an application to recall the order dated 21.04.2015 was filed and order dated 09.08.2016 was passed recalling the order dated 21.04.2015 of the Hon'ble High Court. The said Suit is still pending before the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
13. Thereafter, for the first time on 15.02.2021, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the applicant by the Ministry of Home Affairs directing to show cause as to why departmental action shall not be initiated against him as his name figured in the meeting dated 26.02.2015. The applicant, on 02.03.2021, gave the reply and denied that he was present in the said meeting. Again, the applicant's explanation was sought by letter dated 23.02.2022. The applicant reiterated his earlier stand that he was not present in the meeting dated 26.02.2015.
9
Item No. 45/ C-1 O.A. No. 3417/2024
14. The respondents, thereafter, only on 25.04.2024 issued a charge memorandum to the applicant, which reads as under:
"Article of Charge - 1 Shri Nikhil Kumar, IAS (AGMUT: 2002) in his capacity as member of the All India Services, committed gross misconduct in as much as he attended the meeting dated 26.02.2015 in which the dues on license fees were agreed to the tune of Rs. 150.92 Crores instead of Rs. 526.97 Crores and didn't oppose the wrong interpretation of the order dated 18.05.2001 of Justice Mahajan made by Sh. R.B. Mishra on the basis of which GTO license tee was calculated.
Thus, Shri Nikhil Kumar, IAS (AGMUT: 2002) by above mentioned acts failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant and thereby violated Rule 3(1), Rule 3(2B) (iv), Rule 3(2B) (viii) and 3(2B) (Xiii) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968."
15. Reading of the above charge makes it clear that the allegation against the applicant is that he attended the meeting dated 26.02.2015 in which he did not oppose the wrong interpretation of the order dated 18.05.2001 of the Learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in C.S. (OS) N0. 610/2000, as a result of which the dues on licence fees was agreed to be reduced from Rs. 526.96 crores to Rs. 150.92 crores.
16. Mr. Chibber, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the impugned charge memorandum cannot be sustained for three reasons namely:
i. the charge memorandum is result of the non-application of mind by the respondents, 10 Item No. 45/ C-1 O.A. No. 3417/2024 ii. document on the basis of which respondents themselves have proposed to prove allegations does not prove that the applicant participated in the decisions taken, iii. Charge memorandum requires to be quashed and set aside on the ground of inordinate delay in issuing the same.
17. This Tribunal, by order dated 23.09.2024, after hearing both the sides restrained the respondents from going ahead with a departmental enquiry against the applicant.
18. Mr. Rajiv Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently opposed the OA. He submitted that applicant will have adequate opportunity to defend himself in an enquiry proceeding. He further submitted that this enquiry is initiated on the basis of recommendation of the CBI and the advice of CVC. In support of his submission he relied upon his counter reply.
19. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. We have also gone through the pleadings available on record.
20. By the order dated 24.07.2025, we directed the respondents to produce the relevant original records of the minutes of the meeting held in the office of the Chairman, NDMC on 10.02.2015 and 26.02.2015. In pursuance of this order, Mr. Rajiv Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, has produced the original file 11 Item No. 45/ C-1 O.A. No. 3417/2024 containing the minutes and proceedings of the meetings dated 10.02.2015 and 26.02.2015. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the same. So far as the meeting dated 10.02.2015 is concerned, the minutes are annexed at page nos. 104 & 105 of the paper book. We have tallied these minutes with the original file and found them to be correct. In this meeting a decision was arrived at to remove the licence fee from the outlet and room rentals from its gross turnover. It is pertinent to note that Sh. Jalaj Shrivastava, Chairperson, NDMC, Sh. R K Gaur, Director (Estate), NDMC, Sh. Himanshu Ranjan, Deputy Director (Estate) NDMC and Sh. Tarun Thakral, C.O.O, M/s CJ International Hotels Ltd attended this meeting. It is clear from the minutes of the meeting that the applicant was not present at this meeting. These minutes are signed by only the Chairman, NDMC.
21. So far as the meeting dated 26.02.2015 is concerned, minutes are annexed at page nos. 108 and 109 and the minutes of the meeting are signed at pg no. 141 of the paper book. We have tallied these minutes and proceedings from the original file and found them to be correct as well. Name of the applicant is shown in the minutes of the meeting at serial no. 3. However, the proceedings at page no. 141 shows that the applicant who was the Secretary, NDMC at the relevant time, was not in the office of the Chairman, NDMC and, therefore, neither attended nor signed the proceedings. This is the specific stand of the applicant since 12 Item No. 45/ C-1 O.A. No. 3417/2024 inception and the same was communicated to the respondents in pursuance of the Show Cause Notices dated 15.02.2021 and 23.02.2021 that he was never present in the meeting dated 26.02.2015, which fact is borne out not only from the original record but also from the record supplied by the respondents to the applicant alongwith the chargesheet. The applicant was charged for alleged misconduct namely not to oppose the wrong interpretation of the order dated 18.05.2001 of Justice Mahajan made by Justice (Retd.) R.B. Mishra on the basis which of which GTO licence fee was calculated. At this stage, it is relevant to note that Sh. R.B. Mishra is the former judge of the Allahabad High Court who was the Chief Legal Advisor to the NDMC and even if the applicant was present in the said meeting, he could not have opposed the interpretation of the former judge of a High Court.
22. In above facts and circumstances, we are of the clear opinion that the impugned charge memo is required to be quashed and set aside on the ground of non application of mind. So far as the challenge to charge memo on the ground of inordinate delay is concerned, we find substance in the submission of Mr. Chibber, learned counsel for the applicant. Charge of alleged misconduct of the applicant pertains to the year 2015. However, for the first time, Show Cause Notice was issued to the applicant on 15.02.2021 and thereafter, second Show Cause Notice was issued on 23.02.2021. Both the notices were duly replied by the applicant 13 Item No. 45/ C-1 O.A. No. 3417/2024 and the respondents, in their wisdom, did not proceed further. Thereafter, only on 25.04.2024, a chargesheet was issued to the applicant. There is absolutely no explanation for the inordinate delay except that the same is issued pursuant to the recommendations of the CBI and the CVC. Law in regard to the question of the chargesheet on the ground of delay is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and another reported in 1190 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 738 (Annexure A-11). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing a charge memo, it would be unfair for the departmental enquiry to proceed at such a late stage.
23. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of the matter into consideration, we are of the opinion that impugned charge memo cannot sustain. The OA is accordingly allowed, and the impugned charge memorandum dated 25.04.2024 and consequential proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.1 under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 are quashed and set aside.
24. The Court Officer is directed to return the file containing the original records of the minutes of the meetings held in the office of the Chairman, NDMC, as ordered to be produced by the 14 Item No. 45/ C-1 O.A. No. 3417/2024 Tribunal's order dated 24.07.2025 to Mr. Rajiv Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
25. The OA stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice Ranjit More) Member (A) Chairman /ks/