Back
2024 Supreme(Del) 564
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rekha Palli, Rajnish Bhatnagar, JJ.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Ex Ct Naeem Khan - Respondent
W.P.(C) 10452 of 2023 & CM APPL. 40509 of 2023-Stay.
Decided On : 13-03-2024
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, GNCTD (Services) with Mrs. Taniya Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Ansari Advocate, for the Respondent.
IMPORTANT POINT
The nature of cases where the enquiry can be dispensed with cannot be put in a straight jacket formula and must be considered on their own facts.
Headnote:
Article 311 - Departmental Enquiry - 311(2)(b) - 10.02.2022 in the case of ASI Intikhab Alam - 21.03.1993 and 11.09.2007 circulars - Ct. Sumit Sharma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Ct. Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) - Parveen Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police - Manohar Lal Vs. Commissioner of Police
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the dismissal of an employee under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India and the relevance of a previous case involving a co-accused. The respondent was dismissed without a departmental enquiry, and the court analyzed the grounds for dispensing with the enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal of the respondent without holding a departmental enquiry was unsustainable. It noted that the roles attributed to the respondent and another individual in the incident were different, but this did not justify dispensing with the enquiry. The court also emphasized that the nature of cases where the enquiry can be dispensed with cannot be put in a straight jacket formula and must be considered on their own facts.
Issues: The main issue was whether there were sufficient grounds for the petitioners to dispense with the departmental enquiry and pass a dismissal order against the respondent under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the roles attributed to the respondent and another individual in the incident were different, but this did not justify dispensing with the enquiry. It emphasized that the nature of cases where the enquiry can be dispensed with cannot be put in a straight jacket formula and must be considered on their own facts.
Final Decision: The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it along with all accompanying applications.
JUDGMENT
Rekha Palli, J. (Oral) - The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the learned Central Administration Tribunal in O.A.3106/2022.
2. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal, while allowing the original application filed by the respondent/applicant by setting aside the penalty order dated 26.02.2018 and the appellate order dated 25.04.2019, has directed the petitioners to reinstate him along with all consequential benefits. The learned Tribunal has, however, granted liberty to the petitioners to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent in accordance with law.
3. We may at the very outset note that while passing the impugned directions, the learned Tribunal has primarily relied on its decision dated 02.08.2022 in O.A.1570/2019 filed by ASI Intikhab Alam who, we find, was initially dismissed by the petitioners along with the respondent vide the same penalty order dated 26.02.2018 passed under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India.
4. In support of the petition, Mrs. Ahlawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that in a case like the present, where the witnesses have already turned hostile, it was a fit case where the power under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India was exercised by the petitioners. She submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly relied on the case of ASI Intikhab Alam without appreciating the fact that the roles attributed to the respondent and ASI Intikhab Alam were very different. The complaint by one Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta was in fact, directed only against the respondent and not against ASI Intikhab Alam and, therefore, there was no similarity before the two cases.
5. Furthermore, even though the respondent was apprehended at the site of the incident itself, he was released on bail only on account of the complainant turning hostile, and filing an application and affidavit before the Court to urge that the respondent had been wrongly implicated due to a case of mistaken identity. She, however, does not deny that the order passed by the learned Tribunal in the case of ASI Intikhab Alam has been duly implemented by the petitioners and consequently, a departmental enquiry against him is underway. She, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Tanveer Ahmad Ansari, who appears on behalf of the respondent, supports the impugned order and contends that once the order passed by the disciplinary authority on 26.02.2018 was a joint order whereunder, both the respondent as also ASI Intikhab Alam were dismissed by resort to Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India, the petitioners cannot now be permitted to urge that the two cases are different. He, therefore, contends that once the petitioners are conducting a departmental enquiry against ASI Intikhab Alam, there is no reason as to why an enquiry cannot be conducted against the respondent. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.
7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we may begin by noting the relevant extracts of the impugned order. We may, therefore, first note para 9 of the impugned order wherein the learned Tribunal has referred to the relevant extracts of the decision dated 10.02.2022 in the case of ASI Intikhab Alam. The same read as under:
"9. The judgment in Ct. Sumit Sharma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra) was followed in the case of coaccused/delinquent in the case titled Intikhab Alam (supra), paras 45 to 48 of Ct. Sumit Sharma (supra) which read as under:
"45. In the cases in hand, it is evident that in most of the cases preliminary inquiry had admittedly been done and regular enquiry had been dispensed with on the ground of possibility of witnesses likely to be unduly harassed or pressurized by the In delinquent(s). In all the case FIRs, chargesh
