Delhi High Court
Mukul Verma vs Delhi Sc/St/Obc Minorities & ... on 3 November, 2014
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6446/2014
Date of decision: 03.11.2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
MUKUL VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate
versus
DELHI SC/ST/OBC MINORITIES & HANDICAPPED
FINANCIAL & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. .... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. On the last date of hearing, none was present on behalf of the
respondent/Corporation. As a result, the matter had to be renotified for
today with a request made to learned counsel for the petitioner to give a
written intimation of the next date of hearing, to the nominated counsel
for the respondent/Corporation.
2. Counsel for the petitioner states that he had personally informed
Mr.Rajesh Baweja, nominated counsel for the respondent/Corporation
about the pendency of the present petition and conveyed the next date of
hearing and had also served a copy of the paper book on him.
3. Despite the same, none is present for the respondent.
4. The limited grievance raised by the petitioner, who is employed with
the respondent/Corporation(DSFDC) as an Assistant Manager is that the
Corporation is not taking any steps to consider his case for promotion to
the post of Deputy Manager.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 21.7.1993, the
petitioner was appointed as a Field Inspector with the
respondent/Corporation. In the year 1996, the said post was
re-designated as that of Assistant Manager and ever since then the
petitioner has been working as an Assistant Manager with the
respondent/Corporation. On 6.3.2009, a charge sheet was issued to the
petitioner for misconduct and dereliction of duty regarding improper
verification of documents for grant of loan to a private party. The said
inquiry had culminated in a report dated 17.8.2011 submitted by the
Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority. After following the due
procedure, the Disciplinary Authority had passed an order dated
13.7.2012, wherein "penalty of stoppage of one increment without
cumulative effect", was imposed on the petitioner.
6. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that after the period of
punishment got over, the respondent/Corporation ought to have
considered his name for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager as per
the applicable Rules, but it has not done so. Counsel for the petitioner
states that representations in this regard were submitted by the
petitioner to the respondent/Corporation on 26.7.2013 and 17.9.2013.
One such representation is enclosed with the petition as Annexure P-2.
Finally, the petitioner was compelled to have a legal notice dated
13.12.2013 issued to the respondent/Corporation calling upon it to
consider his case of promotion to the post of Deputy Manager in the
Corporation, but to no avail.
7. In view of the fact that the sole grievance of the petitioner is that
the respondent/Corporation is not taking any steps to examine his case
for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager in accordance with law, it is
deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petition at the stage of
admission, with directions issued to the respondent/Corporation to
consider the representations and the legal notice dated 13.12.2013 issued
by the petitioner and thereafter, pass a speaking order under written to
him, within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of
this order. Needless to state if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order
that may be passed by the respondent/Corporation, he shall be entitled to
seek his remedies, in accordance with law.
8. As none is present on behalf of the respondent/Corporation despite
service of an advance copy of the paper book on its counsel, it is deemed
appropriate to direct the counsel for the petitioner to furnish a copy of
this order to the respondent/Corporation for it to make compliances.
9. The petition is disposed of.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 03, 2014 JUDGE
mk
