Delhi High Court
Mukesh Kumar vs Directorate General And Ors on 12 May, 2017
$~1 (DB)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5273/2016
MUKESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Jha, Advocate with
petitioner in person.
versus
DIRECTORATE GENERAL AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with
Ms. Nidhi Mohan Prashar, Mr. Mayank and
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 12.05.2017
CM APPL. 27486/2016 (for condonation of delay)
1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner praying inter
alia for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the review application.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The
delay of 25 days in filing the review application is condoned.
3. The application is disposed of.
REVIEW PET. 337/2016 (by the respondents for review of the order
dated 31.05.2016)
1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 17.3.2017, on which
date after noticing the sequence of events that had taken place prior to
passing of the order dated 31.5.2016 whereunder, the present petition was
disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to submit a reply to the
Memorandum dated 15.3.2016 issued by the respondent within a period of
15 days, for consideration and disposal by the Disciplinary Authority,
counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner were directed to file their
respective affidavits explaining inter alia the reasons for withholding
material information from the court, which had resulted in passing of the
order dated 31.5.2016, of which the respondents herein seeks recall.
Compliances have been duly made.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents informs us that aggrieved by the
order dated 23.5.2016 passed by the Disciplinary Authority removing the
petitioner from service, he had filed an appeal dated 26.8.2016, before the
Appellate Authority, which was partly allowed, vide order dated 8.9.2016 by
reducing the punishment of removal from service imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority, to compulsory retirement from service with full
pensionary benefits. Thereafter, the petitioner had challenged the order
passed by the Appellate Authority by filing a revision petition, which was
rejected by the office of Inspector General, North Sector, CISF vide order
dated 08.2.2017. As a result, the order of the Appellate Authority has
attained finality.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the
subsequent events, he may be given leave to seek legal recourse against the
orders of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority.
5. While cautioning the petitioner to be more careful in future, we will
let the matter rest here. The review petition is allowed and disposed of while
recalling the directions issued in para 4 of the order dated 31.5.2016. The
petitioner is permitted to seek legal recourse against the orders passed by the
Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, as may be advised.
6. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
C.M. No. 29400/2016 (by the petitioner to recall the order dated
31.5.2016)
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the order
passed in the review petition as above, he does not wish to press the present
application. The same is accordingly disposed of.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MAY 12, 2017
ap
