Sher Singh vs N.D.M.C. And Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 331 Del

$~26
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of decision: January 22, 2013

+                            W.P.(C) 334/2013

       SHER SINGH                                           ..... Petitioner
                             Represented by: Mr.Malaya Chand with
                             Mr.S.P.Mitra, Advocates

                    versus

       N.D.M.C. AND ANR                           ..... Respondents
                     Represented by: Mr.Harshvardhan Singh for
                     Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-1.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)

CM No.694/2013

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 334/2013

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Reliefs sought in O.A.No.963/2012 by the writ petitioner read as under:-

"In view of the facts and grounds stated above the applicant/petitioner pray for the following relief:-

(A)(i) To quash and set aside the Impugned Memo (Annexure-A/1) and subsequent Inquiry Proceedings/ Findings of Inquiry Officer (Annexure-A/2) in the interest of justice.

(ii) To quash and set aside the orders of Disciplinary Authority (Annexure-A/3), Appellate

Authority (Annexure-A/4).

OR (B) To direct the Revisionary authority to dispose of the Revision appeal by passing a speaking and reasoned order by dealing with the documents relied by applicant and definitely within four weeks from receipt of copy of the order.

(C) Such other/further order this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent, in the interest of justice."

3. It is apparent that relief sought vide prayer „B‟ was in the alternative to relief sought as per prayer „A‟.

4. It was pleaded in the Original Application that pursuant to the charge memorandum dated October 29, 2003 Inquiry Officer submitted a report with a close mind indicting the writ petitioner and notwithstanding the fact that in the response to the report of the Inquiry Officer cogent grounds were pointed out highlighting as to why the report of the Inquiry Officer be not accepted, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on July 12, 2007 imposing penalty of reduction to a lower stage in time-scale of pay by 3 stages for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect. It was further pleaded in the Original Application that appellate remedy availed resulted in partial redressal when vide order dated March 02, 2009 the appellate authority set aside the cumulative effect with respect to the penalty levied against which revisional remedy was availed of by filing a revision on March 25, 2009. Grievance made was that in spite of reminder sent on December 25, 2009 the revision was not decided by the revisional authority i.e. the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.

5. It was in the aforesaid facts that prayer „A‟ was made to quash the report of the Inquiry Officer, the penalty levied as also the appellate order.

It was in the aforesaid facts that alternate prayer was made to direct the revisional authority to dispose of the revision petition.

6. Along with the Original Application an application was filed praying that delay in preferring the claim before the Tribunal pertaining to reliefs sought as per prayer clause „A‟ and „B‟ condoned and for which it was highlighted that the revision was not being decided by the revisional authority thereby necessitating the filing of the application before the Tribunal and to approach the Tribunal after a passage of time.

7. Disposing of O.A.No.963/2012, but passing no orders on the application praying for delay in filing the Original Application be condoned, the Tribunal decided, by consent, that the revision would be decided by the revisional authority within six weeks from the date of order passed i.e. July 19, 2012.

8. R.A.No.292/2012 was thereupon filed by NDMC pointing out to the Tribunal that there was a 3 years delay in preferring the Original Application. It was accordingly prayed that the order dated July 19, 2012 be recalled.

9. Vide order dated October 17, 2012 the Tribunal has held that O.A.No.963/2012 was preferred after 3 years of filing of the Revision Petition and was thus barred by limitation. Accordingly, order dated July 19, 2012 was recalled and the result is dismissal of O.A.No.963/2012.

10. It is apparent that the order dated October 17, 2012 is highly misplaced. It ignores the fact that the revision petition filed by the writ petitioner was not decided and the alternative prayer was to direct the revisional authority to decide the revision petition. As long as the revision petition was not decided the question of limitation running against the writ petitioner did not even arise.

11. That apart, while passing the order in review the Tribunal over-

looked the fact that by way of abundant precaution the writ petition had prayed for delay in preferring the Original Application to be condoned. The Tribunal also over-looked the fact that its earlier order dated July 19, 2012, evidence by the last sentence of paragraph 4 of the order, made it clear the same was passed with consent.

12. Even otherwise if a revision petition filed is not disposed of by the revisional authority, at any point of time a grievance can be raised before a judicial fora requiring the revisional authority to discharge its statutory duties.

13. Noting as aforesaid we dispose of the writ petition quashing the impugned order dated October 17, 2012.

14. Order dated July 19, 2012 passed by the Tribunal is restored.

15. However, 6 weeks time is granted to the revisional authority from today to decide the revision petition filed by the writ petitioner.

16. No costs.

17. Dasti.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

VEENA BIRBAL, J.

JANUARY 22, 2013 srb