Delhi High Court
Ranjana vs Ignou Thr. Its Vice Chancellor & ... on 26 May, 2016
$~14.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4925/2016 and CM APPL. 20493-20494/2016
RANJANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate with
Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
IGNOU THR. ITS VICE CHANCELLOR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate for R-1 & 2.
Mr. D. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate with
Mr. Charanjeet Singh, Advocate for R-3/GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 26.05.2016
1. The petitioner, who is working on the post of a Junior Assistant-cum-
Typist with the respondent No.1/IGNOU, seeks quashing of the
Memorandum of Charge dated 30.09.2013 and directions to the respondents
to keep the inquiry proceedings initiated vide order dated 12.04.2016, in
abeyance.
2. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier
hereto, in the year 2004, departmental inquiry proceedings were initiated
against the petitioner on two charges, namely, that she had produced a false
caste certificate at the time of selection and secondly, that she had got
married to one Mr. Tejbir Singh while her divorce petition with her husband
Mr. Trilok Raj was still pending adjudication in the Court. During the
pendency of the enquiry proceedings, clarifications were sought from the
SDM, Hauz Khas, who vide letters dated 09.09.2005 and 23.01.2006, had
conveyed that after conducting an enquiry, the certificate dated 14.03.1988
submitted by the petitioner was found to be genuine. As a result, vide order
dated 16.05.2006, the respondents had decided to withdraw Article I of the
Chargesheet. As for the Article II, disciplinary proceedings were concluded
on 02.08.2007 and the Inquiry Officer held that the charge levelled against
the petitioner in respect of Article II, was proved.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated into the service vide order
dated 19.12.2006. In the meantime, the petitioner has approached the High
Court by filing a petition for quashing of FIR No.323/2005, registered
against her on the complaint of Mr. Tejbir Singh, the person who she had
married during the subsistence of her first marriage with Mr. Trilok Raj. The
High Court had however declined to entertain the said petition and had
directed the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court.
4. Subsequently, the learned MM had passed an order dated 29.09.2012,
directing the ADM (South) to conduct an enquiry into the matter. In his
report dated 05.07.2013, the ADM(South) had stated that it could not be
conclusively proved as to whether the petitioner belongs to the "Jatav"
community in respect of which, she had submitted a caste certificate to the
respondent No.1 at the time of her appointment. Considering the report of
the ADM (South), the learned MM had tentatively held that the petitioner
had obtained employment with the respondent No.1 by misrepresenting that
she belonged to the SC category and an action taken report was called for
from the respondent No.1.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner had filed two
Revision petitions before the Sessions Court that were disposed of by a
common order dated 12.11.2013, wherein the direction issued by the learned
MM for calling upon an action taken report from the respondent No.1, was
set aside. However, it was observed that since the records indicated that
information passed on by the Magistrate had been taken note of by the
Disciplinary Authority, it was left to the latter to take the matter further to its
logical conclusion.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial arising out of FIR
No.323/2005 is at an advance stage and out of ten witnesses cited by the
prosecution, four have already been examined and two witnesses have been
summoned on 03.06.2016 and the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the
respondents are also continuing simultaneously, with the next date fixed as
31.05.2016.
7. Counsel for the petitioner pleads that the respondents be directed to
stay their hands in respect of the disciplinary proceedings atleast for a
couple of months as the trial arising out of FIR No.323/2005 is virtually at
the fag end and it is very likely that the same shall be concluded in this
duration. He further states that even after the order dated 12.11.2013 was
passed by the Sessions Court, the respondents are continuing with the
domestic enquiry though they should have reconsidered the entire issue after
the order of the learned MM, calling for an action taken report from the
respondents, was set aside.
8. In response, Mr.Mirza, counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 states
that the respondent No.1 had reconsidered the entire issue after receiving the
order passed by the Sessions Court and had decided to proceed against the
petitioner by continuing with the disciplinary proceedings, which is well
within the right of the Management. He states that enquiry proceedings are
at the stage of inspection of documents by the petitioner on 31.5.2016 and
thereafter, evidence shall commence.
9. Having regard to the fact that the proceedings in the criminal case are
at an advance stage and likely to conclude in a couple of months, with the
consent of the parties, the present petition is disposed of with directions
issued to the respondents to stay its hands in respect of the disciplinary
proceedings for a period of two months. However, it is made clear that if the
criminal proceedings pending before the learned MM are not concluded
within this duration, then the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the
petitioner shall re-commence w.e.f. 01.08.2016. A next date of hearing
shall be fixed by the Inquiry officer on 31.05.2016, which shall be after
31.07.2016.
10. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
MAY 26, 2016
rkb/mk/ap
