$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 31^st January, 2023 + W.P.(C) 6486/2021 PIYUSH MITTAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep, Advocate.

versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, SC for MCD.

Mr. Sunil Kapoor, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Mr. Piyush Mittal against the Respondent No.1 - North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) and his wife i.e., Respondent No. 2 - Ms. Shilpi Mittal seeking a vigilance enquiry against the Respondent No. 2.

3. The present is a classic case wherein a matrimonial dispute between a couple has resulted in a completely tangential proceeding being pursued by the Petitioner/husband to jeopardise and cause damage to his wife’s employment.

4. The case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner married on 5th May, 2013. At that time Respondent No. 2 was working with the Respondent No.1 as a primary teacher on contract basis. She became a permanent employee in September, 2015. According to the Petitioner, she was able to get this job due to her uncle who was working as Principal in Adarsh Nagar, MCD School in the evening shift. In 2016, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6486/2021 Page 1 of 6 Respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home and disputes ensued between the parties.

5. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 had attended various Court proceedings before the Rohini District Courts, the High Court, before other authorities such as CAW Cell, DHC Mediation Cell, etc. The Petitioner, has obtained the order sheets of these proceedings which would show that Respondent No.2 had remained absent from school on several dates only to attend the proceedings before the various authorities. It is his case that he has also obtained the CDR and location chart of the mobile numbers of the Respondent No.2 and her Uncle by moving an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Rohini. The said CDR and location chart shows presence of Respondent No.2 and her Uncle in the Courts during the working hours of the Respondent No. 2’s school.

6. As per the Petitioner, in view of the fact that Respondent No. 2 has been absenting herself from school and continues to receive salary he filed written complaints dated 26^th August 2019 and 2^nd September 2019, to the Respondent No.1 pursuant to which a show-cause notice was issued to the Respondent No. 2 on 9^th September, 2019. The said complaint continued to remain pending and was sent to the legal department of Respondent No.1.

7. The matter had to be referred to the vigilance department for enquiry, however, such an enquiry was not initiated, hence the present petition has been filed seeking directions against the Respondent No.1 to commence a vigilance enquiry against Respondent No.2. The reliefs prayed for are as under:

“(A) To issue the directions to the Respondent to immediately set up a vigilance inquiry by appointing the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6486/2021 Page 2 of 6 inquiry officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance) or any other independent inquiry authorities on the complaint dated 26.08.2019 & 02.09.2019 submitted by the Petitioner to the Respondent, with a further direction to conclude the inquiry in a time-bound manner;

(B) To direct the Respondent to allow the petitioner to join the inquiry proceedings, if any, initiated by the respondent on the directions of this Hon’ble Court to facilitate the inquiry and to prove the truth through evidences by summoning the record the relevant record as per Sec-5 of Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witness and Production of Documents)

Act, 1972.

(C) To issue the directions to the Respondent to take appropriate legal action in a time bound manner including lodging of the FIR, if after inquiry, the erring