Delhi High Court
Rakesh And Ors vs New Delhi Municipal Council And ... on 22 December, 2014
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9122/2014 and CM APPL. 20781/2014
Decided on: 22.12.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAKESH AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Hameed S. Shaikh, Advocate with
Mr. Amar Pal, Advocate
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Grover, Standing Counsel,
NDMC with Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate for R-1.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners praying inter
alia for directions to be issued to the respondent No.1/NDMC to take
action against the respondent No.4 in view of the offence alleged to have
been committed by him against the petitioner No.2, subject matter of
FIR No.380/2011, registered at Police Station: Kalyanpuri under Section
376 IPC.
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that on 19.11.2011, on the
complaint of the petitioner No.2, a FIR was registered against the
respondent No.4, who is working in the respondent No.1/NDMC in the
post of Beldar, for an offence allegedly committed under Section 376
IPC. On 19.11.2011 itself, the respondent No.4 was sent to judicial
custody and he had remained in judicial custody till 03.01.2012. Vide
order dated 03.01.2012, the learned ASJ had released the respondent
No.4 on bail. In the meantime, the petitioners had submitted a
representation dated 13.03.2013 to the respondent No.1/NDMC,
informing it about the registration of the FIR against the respondent
No.4 and requesting the Department to initiate disciplinary proceedings
against him. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is
that despite repeated representations made by the petitioners to the
respondent No.1/NDMC, it has not take any disciplinary action against
the respondent No.4.
3. Mr. Grover, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/NDMC, who
appears on advance copy, hands over a copy of the office order dated
05.06.2012 issued by the Director (Vigilance), NDMC, wherein it is
recorded that the respondent No.4 was deemed to have been suspended
w.e.f. 19.11.2011 to 04.01.2012 i.e., the duration of his detention and
he would be entitled to subsistence allowance as admissible, for the said
period. He states that after seeing the way the criminal proceedings go,
a decision shall be taken by the respondent No.1/NDMC as to whether it
should initiate disciplinary action against the respondent No.4. A copy of
the aforesaid office order dated 05.06.2012 is handed over with a copy
to the counsel for the petitioners and the same is taken on record.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the counsel for the
respondent No.1/NDMC, the present petition is disposed of.
5. Needless to state that the petitioners shall be at liberty to inform
the respondent No.1/NDMC about the status of the criminal case pending
against the respondent No.4, which shall be taken into consideration and
appropriate disciplinary action, if any, required to be taken under the
Conduct Rules shall be initiated thereafter, as per law.
6. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application.
(HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 22, 2014 JUDGE
rkb
