S. S Hans vs India Tourism Development ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 882 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 08.02.2012

+       W.P.(C) 760/2012

S. S HANS                                                      ... Petitioner

                                         versus


INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LTD. THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING
DIRECTOR ITDC LTD & ORS             ... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners          : Mr Manish Sharma with Ms Shivanshi Gupta
For the Respondent           : Mr Ujjwal K. Jha

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

CM 1683/2012

        Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

WP(C) 760/2012 & CM 1682/2012

1. This is the second round before this High Court insofar as the present

matter is concerned. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being WP(C)

8103/2010, which was directed against the order dated 02.11.2010 in OA

2403/2009. That writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 03.12.2010,

whereby the petitioner was granted liberty to move a review application before

the Tribunal inasmuch as, according to the petitioner, certain documents had not

been looked into by the Tribunal.

2. Consequent thereupon, the petitioner filed a review application before the

Tribunal being RA 337/2010, which was also disposed of by an order dated

03.01.2012. In the review order, the Tribunal noted that the documents which the

petitioner was seeking to rely upon at the review stage, were not really relevant

or germane to the issue. It is in these circumstances that the review application

was also dismissed. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in

which he has challenged both the original order dated 02.11.2010 passed in OA

2403/2009 as well as the order dated 03.01.2012 passed in RA 337/2010.

3. The essential grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was against

the dismissal order dated 15.12.2008, which has been upheld by the appellate

authority by virtue of its order dated 01.05.2009. The ground on which the

petitioner was dismissed was that he had abstained from work with effect from

01.06.2007 when he was posted as Assistant Manager (Accounts). The petitioner

had all through been insisting that he did not want the promotion from the post of

Superintendent (Sports) to Assistant Manager (Accounts) and despite his

insistence that he should not be promoted, the respondents were treating him as

having been promoted and as having been regularized in the post of Assistant

Manager (Accounts). We may also point out that one of the reasons why the

petitioner did not want the promotion was that he had already been given the

benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme after 24 years and he was

already in the scale of ` 8000-13,500/-, which was the very same scale which was

available to Assistant Manager (Accounts). Another reason was that he did not

want to take up a post which had the trappings of an executive character and he

wanted to remain in a non-executive position.

4. Anyhow, the position is that the petitioner was served with the articles of

charge and he was given full opportunity to defend himself. According to the

learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had not been supplied with the

documents which he had sought by virtue of his letters dated 29.02.2008 and

19.03.2008, which, according to him, would have been essential for him to

defend his case. Unfortunately, we find that this submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioner is contrary to the pleadings. This averment had been

made by the petitioner in paragraph 4.19 of the Original Application and had

been controverted by the respondents in their counter-affidavit by stating that the

documents had been supplied by virtue of two letters dated 27.03.2008 and

02.04.2008. This fact, we find, is not denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder

before the Tribunal. The only plea taken by the petitioner was that these

documents were not supplied within a reasonable period and were supplied only

after one month. Therefore, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the

petitioner before us, that the petitioner had not been supplied with the documents,

does not hold any water. We also observe from the order of the Tribunal that no

such contention had been raised on behalf of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner had willfully abstained not only from work with effect from

01.06.2007 but also from the departmental enquiry and ultimately the charges

came to be proved and the dismissal order dated 15.12.2008 was issued. The

appellate authority also confirmed the dismissal by virtue of its order dated

01.05.2009.

6. The scope of interference, on the part of the Tribunal as also on the part of

this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is very limited in such cases. Unless the petitioner is able to show that he

has been denied an opportunity of defending himself or that the dismissal order is

based upon no evidence, it is not possible either for the Tribunal or this Court to

interfere. In the present case, we find that the petitioner had full opportunity to

defend himself and this has also been noted in the order dated 02.11.2010 passed

by the Tribunal. It is also not a case of no evidence.

7. Consequently, we cannot embark upon an examination of the

circumstances with regard to promotion and refusal of promotion by the

petitioner. In these circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition. The

same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K. JAIN, J FEBRUARY 08, 2012 SR