CM(M) 848/2022

Page 1 of 11

$~65(Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M)

848/2022

&

CM

APPL.36713/2022,

CM

APPL.36714/2022

RAMESH CHANDER GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Ankur, Adv. with petitioner

in person

versus

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T (O R A L)

%

24.08.2022

1.

CS CSJ 248/22 was instituted by the petitioner Ramesh Chander

Gupta against the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC, Respondent 1

herein) and three other defendants. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 in the

present petition were Defendants 2, 3 and 4 in the suit. Respondents 2

and 3 are stated, in the plaint, to be the disciplinary authorities of the

petitioner, in the office of Respondent 1.

2.

The petitioner’s allegation in the suit was that unsubstantiated,

unjustified and malicious disciplinary proceedings had been initiated

against the petitioner by Respondents 2 and 3, in conspiracy with

Respondent 4. There are various allegations against Respondents 2, 3

and 4 in the plaint, which need not detain us in the present petition, as

they are sub-judice and pending consideration before the learned Civil

Judge. The disciplinary proceedings were alleged, in the plaint, to

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003318

CM(M) 848/2022

Page 2 of 11

have been instituted by Respondents 2 and 3 on the complaint of

Respondent 4, who is admittedly visually challenged. The plaint also

alleges that, at the instigation of Respondents 2 and 3, Respondent 4

attempted to murder the petitioner. These allegedly unjustified

proceedings are stated, in the plaint to have damaged the reputation of

the petitioner and subjected him to needless harassment. For these

reasons, the plaint sought a decree in favour of the petitioner and

against the respondents jointly and severally for ₹ 2 lakhs alongwith

interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realisation

of the claimed amount alongwith costs.

3.

The aforesaid suit is presently pending trial before the learned

Civil Judge.

4.

During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an

application, purportedly under Rule 69(1)(c) of the Central Civil

Services (Pension) Rules 1972¹ [the CCS (Pension) Rules], for

issuance of a direction to Respondent 1-DTC to withhold the gratuity

of Respondents 2 and 3. The justification for such an extraordinary

prayer is to be found in paras 3 to 6 of the said application, which read

thus:

“3.

That it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the

defendant no.3 is going to retire soon and if the entire dues

were released to the defendant no.3 by the defendant no.1 at

1(c)

No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or

judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon :

Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 16 of the Central

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, for imposing any of the penalties

specified in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 11 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be

authorised to be paid to the Government servant.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003318

CM(M) 848/2022

Page 3 of 11

the time of his retirement, then there is a possibility that the

defendant no.3 may also stop appearing before this hon’ble

court and also adopt the same approach as the defendant no.4

adopted and in that circumstances execution of the decree

which definitely obtains against the defendants becomes

difficult as the plaintiff is having a very strong case in his

favor and there is very likelihood to get succeed in the present

matter.

4.

That the defendants are jointly and severally liable to

pay damages to the plaintiff on account of harassment and

humiliation done by them by condu