Delhi High Court
O.P.Sobti vs Union Of India & Anr. on 15 July, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.5226/1993
% 15th July, 2013
O.P.SOBTI ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sapna Chauhan and Ms. Kalpana, Adv.
for R-1.
Mr. Paritosh Budhiraja, Adv. and Mr. Vikas
B. Pakhiddey, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The relief claimed in this writ petition is the challenge to the
memorandum/show-cause notice dated 21.9.1988, any enquiry proceedings based
thereupon and any orders passed by the Departmental Authority thereon.
2. Respondent no.2/employer has filed counter-affidavit and it is stated that
proceedings pursuant to the memorandum/show-cause notice dated 21.9.1988 have
been dropped. Respondent no.2/employer however relies upon a subsequent order
of the Disciplinary Authority dated 18.12.1990 which has held that the petitioner
WPC 5226/1993 Page 1 of 3
deserted from services of the corporation/NPCC w.e.f 7.3.1990. Respondents
have said that after serving many notices since petitioner failed to appear in the
second enquiry proceedings newspaper advertisement was issued and thereafter
since petitioner did not appear, the order dated 18.12.1990 was passed. I however
need not comment one way or the other today on the validity of the order dated
18.12.1990 inasmuch as this order is not in challenge before me in this writ
petition.
3. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by observing that there
is no need for the petitioner to challenge the suspension order dated 9.9.1988,
show-cause notice dated 21.1.1988 and subsequent enquiry proceedings because
those proceedings including the suspension order and the show cause notice have
been dropped by the respondent no.2. Once the suspension order and the
subsequent enquiry proceedings are dropped, petitioner will be deemed to be in
service till 7.3.1990 and the respondent no.2 is bound to give all service benefits to
the petitioner till 7.3.1990.
4. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation
that petitioner will get all service benefits as if he continued to be in service till
7.3.1990. Petitioner claims not to have been paid salary/monetary benefits from
1.6.1988 to 7.3.1990. The amount due to the petitioner in accordance with law
WPC 5226/1993 Page 2 of 3
from 1.6.1988 to 7.3.1990 be now paid to the petitioner within a period of six
weeks from today alongwith the interest at 9% per annum simple from 1.6.1988 till
payment.
5. It is further clarified that petitioner is given liberty, of course in accordance
with law, to challenge order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 18.12.1990, and
which is not the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Parties are
left to bear their own costs.
JULY 15, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
