Himani Malhotra vs Indraprastha College For Women
2017 Latest Caselaw 6196 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                  Date of Decision: November 06, 2017
+     W.P.(C) 9771/2017
      HIMANI MALHOTRA                        ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. G. Tushar Rao & Mr. Mayank
                  Sharma, Advocates

                             Versus

      INDRAPRASTHA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN ..... Respondent
                  Through: Mr. Rajesh K. Gogna, Mr. Rijul
                  Singh Uppal, Mr. Akhilesh Sagar & Mr. Vipra
                  Bhardwaj, Advocates

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                        JUDGMENT

ORAL

W.P.(C) 9771/2017 & C.M. 39772/2017 & C.M. 39773/2017

1. In a departmental inquiry, petitioner is being proceeded against on the charge of insubordination, desertion etc. and she had filed an application seeking production of prospectuses of respondent- Indraprastha College for Women from the year 2001 to 2011, which stands declined by the Inquiry Officer vide impugned order of 7th October, 2017 (Annexure P-2 colly). Vide another order of even date, the Inquiry Officer has also rejected petitioner's application for summoning of Principal as a witness.

2. Both these applications were filed by petitioner when petitioner's

evidence was concluded. Impugned order declines petitioner's application for summoning of College prospectuses from the year 2001 to 2011 by observing that these applications have been belatedly filed at the stage of final arguments. It is also noted in the impugned order that the relevance of summoning prospectuses has not been explained and so, petitioner's application was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is noted in the impugned order (Annexure P-1 colly) that by summoning the prospectuses in question, petitioner wanted to demonstrate the pattern of Management, as to how the staff council of the College has been nominating Teacher In-charge of various departments, including the Sports Department and how petitioner was discriminated by the Management of the College. It is pointed out by petitioner's counsel that application to summon prospectuses in question was filed at the stage of defence evidence and not at the final argument stage. So, it is submitted that petitioner's application for summoning the prospectuses ought to have been allowed and in case it was not to be allowed, then at least petitioner ought to have been permitted to place on record the copies of the prospectuses in question, so that she can effectively defend herself in the inquiry.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned order and submits that there is no infirmity in it.

5. As regards, summoning of College Principal is concerned, it is submitted by petitioner's counsel that the solitary witness produced by respondent has pleaded ignorance about the documents during his cross- examination and in such a situation, there was no option with petitioner

except to summon College Principal to confront with the documents in question.

6. The aforesaid stand of petitioner is sought to be negated by respondent's counsel, who submits that the application for summoning College Principal is quite vague and in any case, respondent cannot be compelled to get any particular witness examined, as the pleadings in the application regarding documents is quite vague. So, dismissal of this petition is sought by respondent's counsel.

7. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned orders and the material on record, I find that except petitioner, there was no other witness whom petitioner intended to get examined and for all practical purposes, defence evidence stands closed and the case is practically at the stage of final arguments. However, reluctance of respondent to produce the prospectuses in question need not be gone into and since petitioner is in possession of photocopies of the prospectuses in question, therefore, to provide an effective opportunity to petitioner, it is deemed appropriate to permit petitioner to place on record the photocopies of prospectuses in question before the Inquiry Officer within a week from today. Respondent shall file affidavit of admission and denial with regard to the prospectuses in question within a week thereafter, with a copy furnished to opposite side or in the alternative, respondent shall place on record the original prospectuses in question. Requirement of reopening of evidence in respect of these prospectuses in question is not called for, as these prospectuses will speak for themselves.

8. So far as the question of summoning of College Principal is concerned, I find that in view of averments made in the application,

petitioner's prayer has been rightly declined. Such a view is being taken because there are vague averments in the application qua the documents in respect of which College Principal is sought to be summoned.

9. During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court by petitioner's counsel that summoning of College Principal was in respect of documents which were filed by respondent. In such a situation, there was no occasion for petitioner to have moved an application to summon College Principal because respondent is bound by the documents filed on its behalf and if there is any contradiction inter se the respondent's documents on record, then petitioner would be well within her rights to take the benefit. Such an unusual course has to be adopted due to evasive response of respondent's witness to these documents during the course of inquiry.

10. With aforesaid clarification, challenge to the order declining summoning of College Principal is hereby repelled. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, cost imposed upon petitioner stands waived.

11. This petition and applications are disposed of in aforesaid terms. Dasti.

SUNIL GAUR (JUDGE)

NOVEMBER 06, 2017 r