Delhi High Court
Subiman Kundu vs The Union Of India & Ors on 20 December, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 8204/2013 & CM 17308/2013 (Stay)
% 20th December, 2013
SUBIMAN KUNDU ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj and Dr.
Sumat Bhardwaj, Advs.
versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Mr.
Dinesh Sharma and Ms. Ritika
Jhurani, Advocates for R-1 and 2.
Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the action of
the respondent no.3/Indian Institute of Technology/employer whereby a
punishment of removal from service of the respondent no.4 was proposed
initially, and later on an order of censure with deferred appointment was
passed by the disciplinary authority, the same has now been withdrawn after
re-consideration.
WPC 8204/2013 Page 1 of 3
2. I put it to counsel for the petitioner that how does the petitioner have
locus standi with respect to disciplinary proceedings initiated by respondent
no.3/employer against its employee/ respondent no.4, and in response to
which the counsel for the petitioner has argued two aspects. Firstly, it is
stated that petitioner was the complainant, as a result of which enquiry
proceedings had started against the respondent no.4, and secondly it is
argued that petitioner's seniority by withdrawal of the punishment order
would be affected because petitioner in terms of the letter dated 31.5.2013
has been put at serial no.4 in the appointment list of professors and in case
respondent no.4 who is put at serial no.1 in the list would stand removed,
petitioner would get consequential benefits.
3. In my opinion, petitioner has absolutely no locus standi to approach
this Court. Issue of departmental proceedings, viz. disciplinary proceedings,
is a matter between an employer and an employee only. Merely because one
person happens to be a complainant, and who is a petitioner in this case,
cannot mean that he would become party to the disciplinary proceedings or
would have any say with respect to nature/type/quantum of punishment
which has to be imposed on an employee by the employer. Also, merely
because petitioner is put at serial no.4 in the appointment list dated
WPC 8204/2013 Page 2 of 3
31.5.2013, in which respondent no.4 is put at serial no.1, cannot mean that
on this ground petitioner would have locus standi by insisting that setting
aside of the punishment of removal from service of respondent no.4 has
wrongly been done by respondent no.3/employer. As already stated above
issue of disciplinary proceeding or inquiry proceeding is only and only
between the employer and employee in cases such as the present.
4. In view of the above, petitioner does not have any locus standi and the
writ petition is therefore accordingly dismissed.
DECEMBER 20, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
