Delhi High Court - Orders
K.P.Singh Iii vs Uoi & Ors on 1 December, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2758/2006
K.P.SINGH III .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.S.S.Tiwari, Adv. (through
VC)
versus
UOI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj,
CGSC with Mr. Kushagra
Kumar and Mr. Lalit Sikarwar,
Department of Post,
Bulandshahr, for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
ORDER
% 01.12.2025
1. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 03.03.2005 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 500/2004, titled Sh. K P Singh -III v. Union Of India & Ors., as well as the Order dated 10.05.2005 passed by the learned Tribunal in R.A. No. 100/2005 in O.A. No. 500/2004, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed both, the O.A. as well as the Review Application filed by the petitioner herein.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised a contention that in the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner had sought to examine Sh. D.K. Vashishtha, Accountant, D.O. Bulandshahr, as a defence witness. For 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 04/12/2025 at 21:00:33 the said purpose, the inquiry proceedings were adjourned from 20.10.2000 to 30.10.2000. However, stating that Sh. D.K. Vashishtha had shown his unwillingness to attend the inquiry, the inquiry proceedings were closed by the Inquiry Officer and the petitioner was called upon the petitioner to submit his written brief.
3. Placing reliance on Section 5 of the Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972, he submits that the Inquiry Officer was authorised and was, in fact, under a duty to summon and enforce the attendance of the witness. Having not done so, the entire inquiry stood vitiated.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents draws our attention to paragraph 16(m) of the counter affidavit to submit that, upon Sh. D.K. Vashishtha refusing to participate in the inquiry, a Memo No. I.O./ASR-HO/2000 dated 21.10.2000 was sent to the petitioner along with the comments of Sh. D.K. Vashishtha. In response, the petitioner sent his written brief on 14.11.2000, considering which, the inquiry was concluded on same date.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has also produced before us an office file purporting it to be the relevant file of inquiry proceedings. However, we find that the same does not include the record of the inquiry proceedings.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents shall, therefore, produce before us the file containing the inquiry proceedings, on the next date of hearing.
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 04/12/2025 at 21:00:33
7. List on 12th February, 2026 at the 'Top of the Board'.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J DECEMBER 1, 2025/b/P/ik 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 04/12/2025 at 21:00:33