Ranjana Sood vs Ndmc And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 1278 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          WP(C) No.4095/2010

%                                                          March 14, 2013

      RANJANA SOOD                                           ..... Petitioner
              Through :             Mr. Mohit Sood, Adv.


                           versus


      NDMC AND ORS                                           ..... Respondents

Through : Ms. Madhu Tewatia, Adv. for NDMC.

Mr. B.B. Gupta, Adv. for R3 & 3(a).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This is a writ petition totalling to about 85 pages, wherein Prayer

Clause runs from (a) to (s).

2. De hors the aspect of the number of prayers made, counsel for the

petitioner says that essentially, there are two aspects under challenge. First

is the issue of suspension of the petitioner. The second aspect is the

challenge to the departmental proceedings which have been initiated against

the petitioner.

3. So far as the aspect of suspension is concerned, it is not disputed that

the suspension of the petitioner has been recalled and therefore, this relief

does not survive.

4. So far as the relief of stay of departmental proceedings is concerned, I

note that the departmental proceedings have not reached conclusion, i.e the

departmental authorities have not visited the petitioner with any penalty.

The petitioner has been served with the copy of the Enquiry Officer's report,

and counsel for respondents No. 1 and 3 states that the petitioner will be

given a personal hearing by the disciplinary authority before any order is

passed.

5. It is a settled law that enquiry proceedings cannot be scuttled unless

there is an ex facie issue of lack of jurisdiction. I do not find any issue of

the employer lacking any authority to conduct departmental proceedings

against an employee as is alleged in the present case. Whatever may be the

grievance of the petitioner with respect to the enquiry proceedings or

malafides, or to other legal and factual aspects, the petitioner will be entitled

to raise the same before the departmental authority inasmuch as the

departmental authority is yet to pass an order against the petitioner.

6. The writ petition is therefore, mis-concieved at this stage and is

accordingly, dismissed with liberty to raise the issues of facts and law before

the departmental authorities.

                                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
MARCH       14, 2013
j