SUNITA GUPTA, J. - (1.) Vide Crl. MA 4521/2016 under Section 482 Cr.PC, the applicant/Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'CBI ') and Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) seek directions for variation and/or expunging the following observations and/or directions contained in the order dated 24.02.2015 passed in W.P.(Crl.) 2414/2014: "Keeping in view the fact that the FIR itself has been quashed and respondent no.2 is not interested in proceeding with the departmental inquiry, it is impressed upon the concerned department to close the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of complaint made by the complainant/respondent no.2."
(2.) It is alleged that by virtue of the said writ petition, the petitioner had sought quashing of the FIR No. 33/2010 registered under Sections 354/509 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. The CBI was not arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.02.2015 whereby the writ petition was allowed by quashing the aforesaid FIR on the basis of unconditional apology tendered by the petitioner. On the statement of counsel for the respondent no. 2 that the respondent no.2 was not interested in proceeding with the departmental enquiry, the concerned department was impressed upon to close the departmental proceedings initiated against him on the basis of complaint made by complainant/respondent no. 2, It is alleged that a three member committee was constituted to look into the complaint made by the respondent no. 2 with regard to sexual harassment at workplace which gave its finding on 18.03.2010. The DoPT initiated departmental proceedings and forwarded the matter to UPSC for its advice. The UPSC recommended for imposition of penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by two stages for a period of three years with further directions that the CO will not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay and copy of advice of the UPSC was made available to the petitioner. Vide memo dated 03.02.2015, the petitioner was requested to submit his representation. However, this fact was concealed by the petitioner. In case the order dated 24.02.2015 is not varied or modified, serious prejudice would be caused in case of non-imposition of appropriate penalty against the petitioner who has been found guilty in relation to allegations of sexual harassment at workplace.
(3.) The application is contested by the petitioner on the ground that there is inordinate and unacceptable delay of more than a year in filing the present applications. Moreover, Mr D.P. Singh, Administrative Officer - CBI has not clarified whether he is competent to swear the affidavit on behalf of DoPT and whether he has been authorised to file the application. There is no suppression of fact as such the applications are liable to be dismissed.;