Hafiz Mohd. Khalid vs Delhi Wakf Board
2009 Latest Caselaw 5282 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P. (C.) No.11102/2009

%                      Date of Decision: 17.12.2009

Hafiz Mohd. Khalid                                        .... Petitioner
                       Through Mr.K.M.M. Khan, Advocate

                                 Versus

Delhi Wakf Board                                        .... Respondent
                       Through   Mr.Zafar Sadiq, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be             YES
      allowed to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?                NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in            NO
      the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner challenges the order dated 1st June, 2009 in OA

No.476 of 2009 titled Hafiz Mohd, Khalid Vs Delhi Wakf Board passed

by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi,

whereby petitioner's petition challenging his suspension order dated

12th August, 2004 and his plea for reinstatement as an Imam in Madina

Masjid under Delhi Wakf Board were declined.

The petitioner contended that he was appointed as an Imam of

Medina Mosque on honorary basis with the condition that the petitioner

as an Imam of a Masjid under Delhi Wakf Board could be terminated or

transferred at any time from the post of Imam.

A complaint was filed by one Mst.Shahida Khatoon against the

petitioner, who was working at his residence that she was raped by the

petitioner. Consequently an FIR No.448 of 2004 under Section 376 of

Indian Penal Code was registered and a criminal prosecution under

Session Case NO.136 of 2004 was initiated against the petitioner. On

account of the criminal case against the petitioner, he was placed under

suspension from the post of Imam on 12th August, 2004.

The Sessions Court, however, found that Mst.Shahida Khatoon,

prosecutrix, to be a consenting party and consequently the petitioner

was acquitted of the charge of raping her by being given benefit of

doubt. While acquitting the petitioner on the charges of rape, the

Sessions Court had held the conduct of the petitioner was deplorable on

account of having illicit relations with the prosecutrix being an Imam of

the Mosque.

After the petitioner had been acquitted on account of being given

benefit of doubt, he applied for reinstatement. However, the Wakf Board

after considering the facts and circumstances, declined to reinstate the

petitioner holding that since element of moral turpitude was involved,

the petitioner was not entitled to hold the honorary post of an Imam.

Acquittal of the petitioner on account of benefit of doubt given to

him has also not become final as the prosecutrix has filed a revision

petition being Criminal Revision No.521 of 2006 against the acquittal of

the petitioner on account of benefit of doubt, which was admitted and is

pending adjudication in the High Court.

The Tribunal has declined the plea of the petitioner for

reinstatement on the ground that the petitioner was appointed by

Muttawali on honorary basis to lead the prayers in Medina Mosque five

times a day and in such circumstances, the appointment of the

petitioner under the Wakf Board was on an honorary basis. It was also

noticed by the Tribunal that appointment as an Imam does not carry

the incidence of an appointment by the Wakf Board though the Imams

are entitled for emoluments, as held in All India Imam Organisation and

others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1993 SC 2086.

The Tribunal had also permitted the petitioner to make a

representation to the respondent for emoluments and in the

circumstances the petitioner was found not entitled for any further

relief regarding payments of emoluments during the period he worked,

as the respondent had not challenged the order dated 1st June, 2009.

Regarding reinstatement, the Tribunal had held that the charge of

rape against the petitioner has not become final as even though the

Session Court had acquitted the petitioner, however, the revision

petition by the prosecutrix against the petitioner is still pending

adjudication.

In any case, the petitioner was working on honorary basis to offer

prayers as an Imam in a mosque. The petitioner has not denied that he

had consensual sex with Mst. Shaheed Khatoon, the prosecutrix.

Consequently the respondent is entitled not to reinstate him as an

Imam to offer prayers in the mosque on account of moral turpitude

which stands admitted in the facts and circumstances. The petitioner

is not entitled for any relief and the order of the Tribunal cannot be

faulted with, on any of the grounds raised by the petitioner.

The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is without any

legal basis and petitioner is not entitled for any interference by this

Court against the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is, therefore,

dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

December 17, 2009                                      VIPIN SANGHI, J.
'rsk/Dev'