The Delhi High Court has on Thursday given permission to six Public Works Department (PWD) officials to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in response to show cause notices they received for alleged serious rule violations during the renovation of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's official residence.

A panel led by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula has resolved an appeal filed by the Delhi government's Directorate of Vigilance and Special Secretary (Vigilance). This appeal challenged a previous ruling by a single-judge bench, which had ordered that there should be no coercive actions taken against the Public Works Department (PWD) officials who had received show cause notices.

The high court based its decision on a Supreme Court Constitution Bench ruling and stated that it is evident that when it comes to a service-related dispute, the initial step should be to file an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
Hence, the division bench asserted that the writ petition filed by the PWD officials before the single judge was entirely not sustainable, and it should have been dismissed from the outset.

The division bench concluded by resolving the petition that was awaiting a decision before the single judge. They also granted permission to the six PWD officials to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by submitting an original application under the Administrative Tribunals Act while stating, “The fact remains that the Constitution bench... has arrived at the conclusion that the tribunals will continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It is not, therefore, open for litigants to directly approach the high court even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislation (except where the legislation that creates that particular tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the tribunal concerned.”

“It is made clear that this court has not observed anything on merit except the issue of the maintainability of the writ petition in the LPA. With the aforesaid observations, the present LPA stands disposed of,” the court stated.

In its appeal, the Directorate of Vigilance aimed to overturn an interim order issued by a single judge of the high court on September 15. This interim order had directed that no enforcement measures should be initiated by any authority against the PWD officials who had filed the petition until October 12.

The appellants presented a preliminary objection, contending that the writ petition was not valid because the officials in question were employees of the central government. They argued that, for matters related to challenging disciplinary actions, the officials should have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The single judge had issued the interim order in response to the city authorities' failure to show restraint and taking actions that went against their counsel's assurance. Senior advocate Rahul Mehra and Delhi government standing counsel Santosh Kumar Tripathi had given an undertaking before the single judge that no coercive measures would be pursued against the officials. However, the judge was deeply concerned about the authorities not adhering to this commitment.

Nonetheless, the Directorate of Vigilance, in their appeal filed by advocates Yoginder Handoo and Mananjay Mishra, argued that the assurance given by Senior advocate Rahul Mehra and Delhi government standing counsel Santosh Kumar Tripathi lacked authorization from the competent authority.
The Directorate of Vigilance had issued show-cause notices to six PWD officials in connection with an alleged violation of rules during the renovation of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's official residence. These notices were sent to the relevant chief engineers and other PWD officials, requesting them to provide explanations for their actions.

The single judge of the high court had issued the order to protect the six Public Works Department (PWD) officials from any coercive measures while considering their petition. This petition, presented through senior advocate Mohit Mathur, sought to have the show cause notices issued to them on June 19 by the Special Secretary (Vigilance) invalidated. The officials argued that these notices were issued by the senior officer without the necessary authority, or competence, and with a predetermined and biased stance, constituting a misuse of the legal process.
The petition argued that the show cause notices were a result of a political conflict between the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and the ruling party in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT) and that the petitioners were unfairly made "scapegoats" in this dispute.

The PWD officials also asserted that they had not violated any rules, laws, or office directives. They maintained that the work carried out concerning the Chief Minister's official residence was in complete alignment with their official duties and responsibilities.

The show cause notices issued to the officials, on the other hand, alleged that the old structure had been demolished without a survey report, and there was no approval for the construction of the new building by the PWD. The notices requested the PWD officials to provide their account of events, stating that these actions were carried out in clear violation of general financial regulations, the CPWD (Central Public Works Department) manual, and guidelines set forth by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).