Prof Pawan Kumar Sharma And Anr vs Ms Pooja Sharma Dy Secretary Vigilance
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Judgment pronounced on: 01.07.2026
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024, CM APPL.24355/2026
+
PROF PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR. ....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra (Sr. Adv) along
with Mr. Puneet Rathi, Mr. Mohd.
Shahrukh Qureshi, Advs.
versus
MS POOJA SHARMA DY SECRETARY VIGILANCE
....Respondent
Through: Mr. Kshitiz, Adv. for R1.
Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik
Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Mr.
Vibhu Sharma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners alleging wilful
disobedience/ non-compliance with the directions contained in the order
dated 26.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 7416/2022 titled “Prof.
Pawan Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.” . The
operative directions contained therein are reproduced hereunder:
“6. Further, the respondents are directed to furnish within two weeks to
the petitioners, electronic copies of the available videographies along
with an affidavit in terms of the tabulation handed over in Court. Taking
into account the time being granted to the respondents for furnishing
copies of the videographies to the petitioners, the petitioners will be
entitled to furnish their reply to the memorandum dated 08.12.2021
within four weeks time from the date they receive the affidavit from the
respondents in terms of this order.”
2. The petitioners, by way of the present petition, seek the following
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 1 of 24
reliefs:
“(a) initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondent for violating
the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Court with costs;
(b) direct the Respondent to provide 94 CDs readable at present along
with the complete list of 94 TEIs of the inspection carried out in the year
2007-2008 and then in the year 2010-2011 as per the NCTE Regulation
Act 2005, 2007 and 2009 along with an affidavit in terms of the
directions of the Hon’ble Court dated 26.07.2023 read with order dated
30.05.2022;
(c) direct the respondent to also file its response to show what action is
taken against the errant officers/ officials responsible for the missing of
official files/ records and mishandling of CDs and prevent harassing the
petitioners without any fault of them;
(d) pass any or such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The present matter arises in the context of a chequered factual
background. The same is briefly set out hereunder.
4. Vide order dated 13.05.2011 passed in SLP (C) 4247- 4248/ 2009, the
Supreme Court constituted the Justice Verma Committee (hereinafter
referred to as “JVC”) to inter-alia examine the grant of recognition to a
large number of Teacher Education Institutions (hereinafter referred to as
“TEI”) by WRC, Bhopal.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid, the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance),
NCTE, issued Memoranda bearing No. NCTE-Vign012/9/2017-Vigilance
Section-HQ, dated 08.12.2021 upon the petitioners on the allegation that
there were irregularities in respect of recognition of 249 Teacher Education
Institutions (TEIs) in the State of Maharashtra, which were found to be
deficient in compliance with the NCTE Regulations.
6. By way of the said Memoranda, the petitioner no.1 [the then Under
Secretary and Regional Director (incharge), WRC] and the petitioner no.2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 2 of 24
[the then Section Officer, WRC] were asked to show cause as to why major
penalty proceedings should not be instituted against them. The said
Memoranda are reproduced hereinbelow:
“NCTE-Vign012/9/2017-Vigilance Section-HQ
National Council for Teacher Education
Sector, 10 Dwarka, New Delhi
Vigilance Division
th
8 Dec, 2021
MEMORANDUM
The Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed High-Powered
Commission under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) J.S.
Verma to examine the matter relating recognition given by Western
Regional Committee (WRC) to Teacher Education Institutions in
Maharashtra during its 104th-109th meetings held in 2008.
2. The Justice Verma Commission submitted its report in August, 2012
and the same was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and
Govt. of India.
3. The Justice Verma Commission during groundwork Inspected Teacher
Education Institutions (TEIs) in the state of Maharashtra. As per the
Commission, 249 TEIS were found deficient in compliance of NCTE
Regulations and the Commission suggested for their Immediate closure
.
4. In this regard, NCTE vide Order dated 08.07.2019, constituted an
Internal Committee to conduct preliminary investigation and identify the
erring officers/officials of WRC, NCTE so that responsibility may be
fixed and appropriate action may be initiated against the culpable
officers/officials for committing such gross misconduct. The Internal
Committee headed by Dr. Prabhu Kumar Yadav, the then Deputy
Secretary and Chairman of the Internal Committee submitted the partly
completed report on 29.02.2020 (copy enclosed). Subsequent to
retirement of Dr. Prabhu Kumar Yadav on superannuation, the Internal
Committee was headed by Dr. Akhil Kumar Shrivastava, Under
Secretary, NCTE. The Internal Committee submitted the final report
(Copy enclosed) on 14.10.2021.
5. The Reports submitted by the of the Internal Committee has inter-alia
identified following officers/officials of NCTE who are responsible
regarding irregularities in respect of recognition of TEIs as pointed out
by Justice Verma Commission:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 3 of 24
a. Dr. O.V.S. Sikarawar, the then Regional Director, WRC.
b. Dr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, the then Under Secretary and
Regional Director (Incharge), WRC.
c. Sh. N. K. Sharma, the then Section Officer, WRC.
d. Sh. Parvinder Singh, the then Section Officer, WRC.
e. Smt. Mamta Patel, the then Lower Division Clerk, WRC.
f. Sh. Samueal Jeorge, the then Under Secretary, WRC
g. Sh. Krishna Prasad MSR, the then Under Secretary, WRC
h. Sh. D.N. Jha, Assistant, WRC
i. Sh. Bansidhar Mohapatra, the then Section Officer, WRC
6. It has been observed that the recognition has been given to ineligible
Institutes due to carelessness and negligence act of above officers which
amount to dereliction of assigned duties, and defiance of allotted work.
7. It has further been observed that due to negligent act, lack of devotion
to duties and casual approach, Dr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, the then
Under Secretary and Regional Director (Incharge), WRC has put the
NCTE in a very embarrassing situation.
8. By the above act, Dr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, the then Under Secretary
and Regional Director(Incharge), WRC has failed to maintain devotion
to duty and committed grave misconduct, and thus violated the provisions
of Conduct Rule 3 (1) (i), Rule 3 (1) (ii), Rule 3 (1) (iii) CCS (Conduct
Rules) 1964.
Now Therefore, Dr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, the then Under Secretary
and Regional Director (Incharge), WRC is show caused, as to why Major
penalty proceeding should not be initiated against him. His explanation
should reach to the undersigned within 15 days falling which it will be
assumed that he has noting to say and action as deemed fit will be
initiated against him under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In this regard, a
copy of the Justice Verma Commission Report (Volume 2) containing
details about irregularities and Internal Committee report is enclosed.
This issues with the approval of Competent Authority.
Sd/-
Neelam Sharma
Deputy Secretary (Vig.)
To
Dr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, the then Under Secretary and Regional
Director (Incharge), WRC. Now Head of Political Science Department
Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250001.
Copy for information to :
1. PS to Chairperson, NCTE
2. Section Officer to Member Secretary, NCTE.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 4 of 24
“NCTE-Vign012/9/2017-Vigilance Section-HQ
National Council for Teacher Education
Sector, 10 Dwarka, New Delhi
Vigilance Division
th
8 Dec, 2021
MEMORANDUM
The Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed High-Powered Commission
under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) J.S. Verma to examine
the matter relating recognition given by Western Regional Committee
(WRC) to Teacher Education Institutions in Maharashtra during its 104th-
109th meetings held in 2008.
2. The Justice Verma Commission submitted its report in August, 2012 and
the same was accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Govt.
of India.
3. The Justice Verma Commission during groundwork inspected Teacher
Education Institutions (TEIs) in the state of Maharashtra. As per the
Commission, 249 TEIS were found deficient in compliance of NCTE
Regulations and the Commission suggested for their immediate closure.
4. In this regard, NCTE vide Order dated 08.07.2019, constituted an
Internal Committee to conduct preliminary investigation and identify the
erring officers/officials of WRC, NCTE so that responsibility may be fixed
and appropriate action may be initiated against the culpable
officers/officials for committing such gross misconduct. The Internal
Committee headed by Dr. Prabhu Kumar Yadav, the then Deputy
Secretary and Chairman of the Internal Committee submitted the partly
completed report on 29.02.2020 (Copy enclosed). Subsequent to
retirement of Dr. Prabhu Kumar Yadav on superannuation, the Internal
Committee was headed by Dr. Akhil Kumar Shrivastava, Under Secretary,
NCTE. The Internal Committee submitted the final report (Copy enclosed)
on 14.10.2021.
5. The Reports submitted by the of the Internal Committee has inter-alia
identified following Officers/Officials of NCTE responsible regarding
irregularities in respect of recognition of TEI's as who pointed out by
Justice Verma Commission
:
a. Dr. O.V.S. Sikarwar, the then Regional Director, WRC.
b. Dr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, the then Under Secretary and
Regional Director (Incharge), WRC.
c. Sh. N. K. Sharma, the then Section Officer, WRC.
d. Sh. Parvinder Singh, the then Section Officer, WRC.
e. Smt. Mamta Patel, the then Lower Division Clerk, WRC.
f. Sh. Samueal Jeorge, the then Under Secretary, WRC
g. Sh. Krishna Prasad MSR, the then Under Secretary, WRC
h. Sh. D.N.Jha, Assistant, WRC
i. Sh. Bansidhar Mohapatra, the then Section Officer, WRC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 5 of 24
6. It has been observed that the recognition has been given to ineligible
institutes due to carelessness and negligence act of above officers which
amount to dereliction of assigned duties, and defiance of allotted work.
7. It has further been observed that due to negligent act, lack of devotion
to duties and casual approach, Sh. N.K. Sharma, the then Section Officer,
WRC has put the NCTE in a very embarrassing situation.
8. By the above act, Sh. N.K. Sharma, the then Section Officer, WRC has
failed to maintain devotion to duty and committed grave misconduct, and
thus violated the provisions of Conduct Rule 3 (1) (i), Rule 3 (1) (ii), Rule
3 (1) (iii) CCS (Conduct Rules) 1964.
Now Therefore, Sh. N.K. Sharma, the then Section Officer, WRC is show
caused, as to why Major penalty proceeding should not be initiated
against him. His explanation should reach to the undersigned within 15
days failing which it will be assumed that he has noting to say and action
as deemed fit will be initiated against him under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
In this regard, a copy of the Justice Verma Commission Report (Volume
2) containing details about irregularities and Internal Committee report
is enclosed.
This issues with the approval of Competent Authority.
Neelam Sharma
Deputy Secretary (Vig.)
To
Sh. N. K. Sharma, Under Secretary, NCTE.
Copy for information to:
1. PS to Chairperson, NCTE
2. Section Officer to Member Secretary, NCTE.”
7. A perusal of the aforesaid Memoranda dated 08.12.2021 shows that
the allegations against the petitioners arise from their involvement in the
inspection process undertaken during the years 2007-08, pursuant to which
recognition/approval came to be granted to the concerned TEIs. According
to the respondent/ NCTE, subsequent inspections conducted by the JVC
revealed that the grant of such recognition/approval was untenable. It is
these allegations that form the very basis of the aforesaid Memoranda.
8. Thereafter, the petitioners, in order to submit their response to the said
Memoranda / Show Cause Notices, requested the respondent/ NCTE to
provide them with the copies of the requisite regulatory files on the basis of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 6 of 24
which the Memoranda / Show Cause Notices were issued to them. Pursuant
thereto, a Memorandum dated 31.03.2022 came to be issued by the NCTE to
the petitioners, which reads as under:
9. Thereafter, since the respondent/ NCTE had failed to furnish the
necessary regulatory files even after repeated requests, the petitioners were
constrained to institute W.P.(C) 7416/2022, wherein, the following reliefs
were sought:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 7 of 24
10. Taking note of the petitioners' grievance that they were unable to
effectively respond to the Memoranda dated 08.12.2021 in the absence of
the underlying records, this Court disposed of W.P.(C) 7416/2022, vide
order dated 30.05.2022, by directing the NCTE to furnish copies of all the
249 files referred to therein. The Court in paragraph-6 of the said order,
further directed the inquiry proceedings to be deferred until the said files
were supplied to the petitioners. The said order reads as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 8 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 9 of 24
11. Thus, in terms of the aforesaid order, the NCTE was obligated to
furnish the requisite records to the petitioners so as to enable them to
effectively and meaningfully respond to the allegations forming the subject
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 10 of 24
matter of the Memoranda dated 08.12.2021.
12. Thereafter, on 09.10.2022, CM APPL. 44079/2022 came to be filed
by the NCTE, seeking clarification/ modification of the aforesaid order
dated 30.05.2022 to proceed with the inquiry against the petitioner qua 246
regulatory files which had ostensibly been furnished to the petitioners.
13. On 07.12.2022, CM APPL. 53279/2022 came to be filed by the
petitioners, seeking inter alia the exact and comprehensive copies of the 246
regulatory files which had been provided to them, the videographies of the
inspections, and copies of the NCTE regulations.
14. Eventually, vide order dated 26.07.2023, the said applications were
disposed of, wherein this Court, vide paragraph – 6 of the said order,
directed the NCTE to furnish the electronic copies of the available
videographies to the petitioners, along with an affidavit. The said order reads
as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 11 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 12 of 24
15. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 26.07.2023 shows that NCTE
was directed to furnish to the petitioners electronic copies of all available
videographies pertaining to the inspections in question. The direction came
to be issued in the backdrop of NCTE’s own stand that, out of the 246
instances in respect of which allegations had been levelled against the
petitioners, videographies were available only in respect of about 119
inspections, and that too only a limited number thereof were found to be
readable.
16. Pursuant to the directions contained in paragraph – 6 of the said order,
on 08.08.2023, an affidavit came to be furnished by the NCTE. The same
reads as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 13 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 14 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 15 of 24
17. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid affidavit proceeds on the basis
of the availability of “readable CDs”. While paragraph 2 refers to the
number of readable CDs available in respect of the inspections conducted in
2007-08, paragraph 3 records the position regarding the readable CDs in
respect of the inspection conducted in 2010-2011. More importantly,
paragraph 4 unequivocally states that electronic copies of the available
videographies had already been supplied to the petitioners.
18. On 05.07.2024, the petitioners filed the present contempt petition
alleging non-compliance with the directions contained in the order dated
26.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 7416/2022.
19. In order to ascertain the precise nature and extent of the material
available with NCTE, this Court, vide order dated 08.07.2024 passed in the
present proceedings, directed that the entire digital data proposed to be
furnished to the petitioners be produced before this Court along with
relevant details in a tabular format. The respondent was further directed to
file an affidavit indicating the contents of each CD pertaining to the
inspections of the concerned institutions.
20. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the respondent filed an
affidavit wherein it was, inter-alia , stated that petitioner no.2 had since been
prematurely retired under FR 56(j) and in view of such retirement, petitioner
no.2 was not required to furnish any response to the Show Cause Notice
issued against him.
21. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.03.2026 passed in the present
proceedings, this Court directed an independent IT Expert to carry out the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 16 of 24
exercise of identifying the readable data supplied to the petitioner, and
accordingly, place an affidavit on record. On 13.04.2026, the said report was
placed on record before this Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
22. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that despite the
directions issued by this Court, the respondent failed to furnish the complete
records and videographies forming the basis of the allegations contained in
the Memoranda dated 08.12.2021. It is submitted that the non-supply of the
underlying material has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners and
deprived them of an effective opportunity to respond to the allegations
levelled against them.
23. It is further contended that although the respondent subsequently
furnished electronic copies of certain videographies, a substantial number
thereof were either unreadable, inaccessible or unrelated to the inspections
in question. According to the petitioners, the material so supplied was
returned to the respondent as it did not constitute meaningful compliance
with the directions issued by this Court. It is submitted that notwithstanding
these deficiencies, the respondent continued to call upon the petitioners to
furnish their replies to the Memoranda dated 08.12.2021, and threatened
consequential actions.
24. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there has
been complete compliance with the directions contained in the order dated
26.07.2023. It is contended that although the respondent was not relying
upon the inspection videographies in the disciplinary proceedings, the
available videographies were nevertheless furnished to the petitioners in
compliance with the directions passed by this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 17 of 24
25. It is further submitted that, as recorded in the order dated 26.07.2023
itself, videographies were available only in respect of a limited number of
institutions and that only a certain number thereof were found to be
readable. According to the respondent, the direction issued by this Court was
confined to furnishing the available videographies, and no direction was
issued requiring the respondent to produce material that was admittedly
unavailable.
26. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are seeking to
reagitate issues which stood specifically left open by the order dated
26.07.2023. It is submitted that the petitioners' contention that the non-
availability of videographies would itself exonerate them was expressly not
examined by this Court and was left to be urged in appropriate proceedings.
27. It is lastly submitted that pursuant to the subsequent directions issued
by this Court, an independent IT expert was appointed to examine and
identify the relevant and readable data. The report submitted by the said
expert demonstrates that a substantial part of the videographic material
remains accessible and operational.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
28. In the above factual backdrop, the principal issue that arises for
consideration is whether the respondent has complied with the directions
contained in the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C)
7416/2022, requiring them to furnish to the petitioners electronic copies of
the available videographies pertaining to the inspections forming the basis of
the allegations levelled against them.
29. It is relevant to note that the directions contained in the order dated
26.07.2023 were issued in the context of the disciplinary proceedings
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 18 of 24
initiated against the petitioners pursuant to the Memoranda dated
08.12.2021. The purpose underlying the said directions was to ensure that
the petitioners were furnished with the available material, inter alia ,
CDs/videographies directed to be supplied by this Court, so as to enable
them to effectively respond to the allegations levelled against them.
30. It is noted that pursuant to the order dated 08.07.2024 passed in the
present proceedings, the respondent filed an affidavit stating that petitioner
no.2 had since been prematurely retired under FR 56(j) and, consequently,
was no longer required to submit a response to the Show Cause Notice
issued to him.
31. Be that as it may, the controversy as regards the availability and
supply of the relevant videographies continued to persist. It was in these
circumstances that this Court, vide order dated 17.03.2026, directed an
independent IT Expert to undertake an exercise for identifying and verifying
the readable data available with the respondent. The said order, inter alia ,
reads as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 19 of 24
32. Subsequently, CM. APPL. 24355/2026 came to be filed by the
respondent in the present proceedings, inter alia , enclosing the report of Sh.
Manish Kumar Singh (IT Advisor) who conducted the exercise in terms of
the directions contained in the aforesaid order dated 17.03.2026.
33. A perusal of the aforesaid report reveals that none of the
CDs/videographies pertaining to the inspections conducted during the year
2007-08 were found to be readable or operational.
34. The aforesaid position appears to be at variance with the affidavit
dated 08.08.2023 (as reproduced above), filed by the NCTE pursuant to the
order dated 26.07.2023 passed in W.P.(C) 7416/2022. The inconsistency
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 20 of 24
becomes more apparent when viewed alongside the respondent’s subsequent
stand regarding the number of readable videographies available in respect of
the inspections conducted in the year 2010-11. It has been specifically stated
in the written synopsis filed on behalf of the respondent as under:
35. The record clearly discloses serious incongruity and inconsistency as
regards the availability and readability of the videographic material
pertaining to the inspections of the concerned TEIs. As noticed, these
inspections constitute the very foundation of the allegations levelled against
the petitioners in the Memoranda dated 08.12.2021. The inconsistency in the
stands taken by the respondent regarding the availability of the relevant
videographic material, coupled with the findings recorded in the report of
the IT Advisor, further underscores the uncertainty surrounding the
underlying record.
36. As noticed, in the affidavit dated 08.08.2023, the following
categorical averments were made by the respondent with regard to the
inspections held in the year 2007-08:
“2. It is submitted that the inspection in the above said 246 files were
conducted in the year 2007-2008 and the details are being given in
tabular form:-
Inspection made in the Year 2007-2008
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 21 of 24
Total No. of Files Check B-1
246
to B-249
No. of Readable CDs in 2008 149
No. of Not Readable CDs in
4
2008
No. of Damaged CDs in 2008 29
No. of CD/Cassette not
available in the file year 2008
61
Not found any type of data in
1
CD 2008
No. of cassettes found in
2
2008
37. Therefore, while the affidavit dated 08.08.2023 proceeded on the
basis that readable videographies were available in respect of the inspections
conducted during 2007-08, the report of the IT Advisor furnished pursuant
to the order dated 17.03.2026 passed in the present proceedings, indicates
that none of the CDs/ videographies pertaining to the said period were found
to be readable or operational. Similar inconsistencies are also discernible
with respect to the CDs/ videographies relating to the inspections conducted
in the year 2010-11.
38. In these circumstances, this Court is constrained to observe that the
non-availability of this basic record seriously impinges upon the petitioners'
ability to effectively respond to the allegations forming the subject matter of
the Memoranda dated 08.12.2021.
39. It is noticed that paragraph-3 of the order dated 26.07.2023 in
W.P.(C) 7416/2022 specifically records the contention of the petitioners that
non-availability of the relevant data/videographies is by itself a ground to
exonerate the petitioners in respect of the allegations levelled against them.
While this Court did not examine the merits of that contention, it expressly
observed in paragraph-4 of the said order that the petitioners would be at
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 22 of 24
liberty to urge such plea in appropriate proceedings.
40. Necessarily, the sheer disarray/chaos as regards a substantial part of
the relevant record is a circumstance that has a crucial bearing and would
require due consideration by the competent authorities while taking a final
view in the proceedings initiated pursuant to the Memoranda dated
08.12.2021.
41. The petitioners shall remain at liberty to raise all contentions in
respect of the aforesaid aspect, and if such contentions are raised, the same
shall be duly considered in accordance with law, taking note of the
observations made in the order dated 26.07.2023 and in the present order.
Moreover, the difficulty/inability in furnishing the relevant record to the
petitioners shall also be necessarily taken into account.
42. Insofar as petitioner no.2 is concerned, if the allegations contained in
the Memoranda dated 08.12.2021 have been taken into account while
passing the order under FR 56(j), it shall be open to the said petitioner to
urge all pleas as may be available in law, in any pending proceeding/s where
such action has been impugned.
43. As regards the prayer for initiation of contempt proceedings, despite
the said state of affairs as regards (non) availability of relevant records, this
Court is not persuaded to hold that the respondent has acted in deliberate or
wilful disobedience of the order dated 26.07.2023. The material on record
indicates that the difficulties in furnishing the videographic material stem
from issues relating to its availability, preservation and readability. In the
absence of any material demonstrating conscious or intentional disregard of
the directions issued by this Court, the ingredients necessary for invoking
contempt jurisdiction cannot be said to have been established. However, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 23 of 24
respondent shall be bound to duly account for the consequences flowing
from the non-availability of the relevant record in any pending/ future
departmental or administrative proceedings concerning the petitioners. The
petitioners shall be entitled to raise all pleas in this regard, which shall be
considered on their own merits and in accordance with law.
44. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
SACHIN DATTA, J
JULY 1, 2026/ at/ka
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:01.07.2026
19:43:59
CONT.CAS(C) 1030/2024 Page 24 of 24