Delhi High Court
Mahipal Singh vs The Commissioner, Municipal ... on 21 February, 2014
Author: Gita Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1190/2014
% Date of decision: 21st February, 2014
MAHIPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Subhash Chand Tomar and
Mr.Yatendra Nagar, Advocates
versus
THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Suryadeep Singh, Adv. for
Ms.Prabhsahay Kaur, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
1. The writ petitioner assails the order dated 10th September, 2013
whereby his O.A.No.2811/2013 was dismissed in limine by the Central
Administrative Tribunal.
2. It appears that the petitioner stands convicted by judgment dated 24 th
January, 2012 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi
for commission of offence under Sections 7 and 13 (i) (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
The petitioner has assailed the said conviction by way of the Criminal
Appeal No.146/2012 before this court which is stated to be pending.
3. It appears that in view of the conviction of the petitioner, the
respondents proceeded to take action against the petitioner under Section 95
(2) (a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 which empowers the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi to dismiss an employee on the ground of
conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Vide an order
dated 9th July, 2012, the petitioner was thus dismissed from service. His
representation dated 28th September, 2012 against the dismissal did not meet
any favourable consideration.
4. The petitioner thereafter challenged his dismissal by way of
O.A.No.2811/2013. The Tribunal rejected the challenge by the petitioner on
the ground that the respondents had proceeded in accordance with law in
exercise of statutory power.
5. The order dated 9th July, 2012 of the respondent and the order dated
10th September, 2013 passed by the Tribunal have been assailed before us
primarily on the ground that no opportunity to show cause was given to the
petitioner before passing the impugned order and that his special
circumstances including the responsibility of three children and wife etc.
deserved to be compassionately considered.
6. We may note that the Tribunal has extracted Section 95 of the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Under the proviso to sub-Section (2) of
Section 95 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, it is specifically
provided that where an officer or employee is dismissed on the ground of
conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, no opportunity
of showing cause against the proposed action to be taken is required to be
given. The Tribunal also adverted to the provisions contained in Regulation
9 (i) of the DMC Services (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1959 which also
provide that no departmental enquiry is essential for imposition of penalty
upon the municipal employee on the ground of conduct leading to his
conviction in a criminal case.
The challenge by the petitioner on the ground of denial of opportunity
to show cause is therefore contrary to the specific statutory prescription and
is untenable.
7. We may note that the Tribunal has not given liberty to the petitioner
that in the event of his success in the criminal appeal preferred by him
against his conviction, he would be entitled to work out his claim of
reinstatement in accordance with law and dismissal of his case would not
come in the way of consideration of his request.
In view of the above, the impugned order of respondents and the
Tribunal cannot be faulted on any legally tenable ground.
The writ petition and the application are hereby dismissed.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
FEBRUARY 21, 2014
rb
