W.P.(C) 1292/2008

Page 1 of 12

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of order : 18^th July, 2022

+

W.P.(C) 1292/2008

SURESH CHAND SANKHLA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate

versus

D.T.T.D.C. & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Rajeev Chhetri, Mr. Vikrant

Yadav and Mr. Rajesh Chhetri,

Advocates

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

O R D E R

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1.

The instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking

following reliefs:-

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002806

W.P.(C) 1292/2008

Page 2 of 12

2.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner was appointed on the permanent post of Junior

Salesman in the respondent No. l corporation on 19^th August 1991 and

had served the said corporation up to the date of his dismissal from

service vide impugned order dated 30^th November 2007. During his

tenure of more than 16 years the petitioner was posted at Indian-Made

Foreign Liquor (IMFL, in short) Shops situated at Chandni Chowk,

Vishnu Garden, South Patel Nagar and Rajinder Nagar and lastly at

Vasant Vihar, Delhi.

3.

It

is

submitted

that

the

respondent

corporation

issued

Memorandum of Charge to the petitioner on 23^rd May 2001 under Rule 3

of CCS (CCA) Rules read with Rule 11.1 of the Delhi Tourism

Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 1986.

Thereafter, vide notice dated 7^th August 2001 the Enquiry Officer

(hereinafter referred to as "the EO" in short) directed the petitioner to

appear before him on 17^th August 2001.

4.

It is submitted that on 17^th August 2001, the EO directed the

petitioner to nominate his defense Assistant by 27^th August 2001, to

examine the documents by 30^th August 2001, to submit the list of defense

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002806

W.P.(C) 1292/2008

Page 3 of 12

documents, and to submit the list of defense witnesses by 10^th September

2001. The EO further directed the petitioner to intimate the compliance of

the above said directions to him by 3^rd September 2001. It is submitted

that the above said directions itself are illegal and violative of principles

of natural justice since the petitioner was not in a position to take the

abovesaid steps without first nominating the legal assistant and taking his

help on its approval.

5.

It is submitted that vide letter dated 23^rd August 2001, the

petitioner requested the Disciplinary Authority and to the EO to stay the

departmental proceedings till the decision of the pending criminal case.

However, the said requests were not acceded to despite several

representations made in this regard. It is submitted that the respondent no.

1 and 2 did not stay the proceedings and concluded the entire hearing on

one date i.e. on 22^nd October 2001 and submitted his report to the

Disciplinary Authority. A copy of the said report was also forwarded to

the petitioner vide letter dated 6^th December 2001, directing the petitioner

to make representation on the said report within 15 days. In the

interregnum, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ

petition, wherein interim order was passed in his favour. Upon vacation

of the interim order, the respondent corporation passed the impugned

order on 30^th November 2007, dismissing the petitioner from service.

6.

It is submitted that neither the Respondent No. l nor the

Respondent No.2 invited any representation on the findings nor the

disciplinary authority gave opportunity to the petitioner to submit his

view on the report nor the disciplinary authority served any notice on the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002806

W.P.(C) 1292/2008

Page 4 of 12

petitioner intimating him the action proposed