W.P.(C) 5101/2014

Page 1 of 20

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 21.09.2022

%

Judgment delivered on: 06.10.2022

+

W.P.(C) 5101/2014

SAHEB LAL

..... Petitioner

Through:

Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, Advocate.

versus

MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Arun Sanwal, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

J U D G M E N T

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, C.J.

1.

The present petition is arising out of order dated 27.07.2012, passed

by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi

in O.A No. 1439/2011, dismissing the Original Application preferred by the

Petitioner.

2.

The facts of the case reveal that the Petitioner was initially an

employee of the Department of Telecommunication and later on, on

establishment of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL), a company

incorporated under the Companies Act, he became the employee of MTNL.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004036

W.P.(C) 5101/2014

Page 2 of 20

3.

The Petitioner was absorbed in the services of MTNL. The Central

Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in the year 1987, registered a case against the

Petitioner and two others, namely Govind Singh and Hans Raj and, at the

same time, the Department also initiated disciplinary proceedings.

4.

A charge sheet was issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules,

1965 to the Petitioner as well as to Govind Singh and Hans Raj. In the

departmental enquiry, the charge was not proved against the Petitioner and

the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 30.04.1990. Finally, the

disciplinary authority, vide order dated 04/07.03.1991, based upon the

enquiry report, passed an order exonerating the Petitioner of the alleged

misconduct. However, the other two persons were held guilty and

punishment was inflicted upon them.

5.

The CBI in the criminal case filed a Charge-sheet and finally the Trial

Court vide judgment of conviction dated 15.10.2007, convicted all the three

persons, including the Petitioner and the Petitioner was sentenced to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- for an offence under Section

409 IPC. He was also convicted for an offence under Section 5(2) read with

Section 5(l)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to

two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/-.

6.

The records of the case further reveal that in the Departmental

Enquiry proceedings, the identically placed employees i.e. Govind Singh

and Hans Raj were inflicted with a punishment of stoppage of two

increments and in respect of Shri Hans Raj, the charge sheet was quashed.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004036

W.P.(C) 5101/2014

Page 3 of 20

7.

The Petitioner, after his conviction, was placed under suspension by

an order dated 05.01.2010 and, thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on

07.01.2010 directing the Petitioner to show cause as to why his services

should not be put to an end on account of conviction in a criminal case. The

Petitioner did submit his reply on 25.01.2010 and finally an order was

passed on 22.06.2010 removing the Petitioner from service and the

Petitioner did submit an appeal dated 14.07.2010 against the order dated

22.06.2010 and, at the same time, filed an Original Application i.e. O.A. No.

2853/2010 before the CAT challenging his suspension as well as removal.

8.

The appeal was dismissed on 29.12.2010 during the pendency of the

Original Application and he withdrew the Original Application with the

liberty to file a fresh Original Application. The Petitioner, thereafter,

preferred another Original Application i.e. O.A. No. 1439/2011 being

aggrieved by the order of suspension and order of removal and the CAT by

impugned order dated 27.07.2012 has set aside the suspension, however, the

order of removal has been affirmed.

9.

Learned