Delhi High Court
Sonali G. Badhe vs Union Of India And Ors on 24 April, 2018
#25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on:24.04.2018
LPA 224/2018 & CM No.16085/2018 (stay)
SONALI G. BADHE ..... Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. Kunal Cheema and Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
CM No. 16084/2018 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications stand disposed of.
LPA 224/2018
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High
Court Act, 1966 read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent (as applicable to
the Delhi High Court) assails the impugned judgment and order dated 23rd
February, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 1754/2018, whereby, it has been directed as follows:
"4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has
been already permitted to be impleaded as a party in the said Original
Application No.2755/2016 Ashish Chandra Singh Vs. Ministry of
Finance & Anr. In view thereof, this petition is disposed of while
refraining to comment upon the merits and with permission to
permission to petitioner to assist the Court on the proportionality of
the penalty imposed and to point out regarding the penalty imposed
being disproportionate/inadequate and to point out regarding
corrigendum of 26th May, 2017 (Annexure P-5) to order of 28th July,
2016 (Annexure P-4) not being in consonance with the penalty order
(Annexure P-3). If petitioner adopts such a course, then it is expected
that the Central Administrative Tribunal shall expeditiously look into
the proportionality of the penalty imposed and the effect of the
corrigendum of 26th May, 2017 (Annexure P-5) to order of 28th July,
2016 (Annexure P-4).
5. Needless to say that the Tribunal shall permit petitioner to
raise the aforesaid pleas if available in law to her, uninfluenced by its
order (Annexure P-7)."
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are briefly encapsulated as
follows:
(a) On the appellant's complaint of sexual harassment against respondent
No. 4, the latter, after enquiry, was visited with the penalty of reduction to a
lower stage in the time scale of pay by three stages for a period of three
years, vide order dated 21st June, 2016.
(b) The appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, New
Delhi (for short 'CAT') against the said order dated 21st June, 2016 seeking
enhancement of the penalty but subsequently on 10th November, 2017, she
withdrew the Original Application with liberty to approach the appellate
forum or to seek any other remedy available to her in law.
(c) The appellant, it is observed, is also aggrieved by a corrigendum dated
26th May, 2017, to order of 28th July, 2016, inasmuch as, according to her,
the penalty as originally imposed upon the respondent No. 4 has been
subsequently watered down.
(d) In the present proceedings, the appellant has prayed for enhancement
of the penalty awarded to the fourth respondent. It is an admitted position
that, the fourth respondent has approached the CAT, against the order dated
21st June, 2016, and that the appellant has been permitted to be impleaded as
a party in the said Original Application No. 2755/2016 titled as "Ashish
Chandra Singh vs. Ministry of Finance & Anr."
e. By way of the impugned order and judgment dated 23rd February,
2018, the learned Single Judge has clearly permitted the appellant to raise
the issue of proportionality of penalty imposed upon the fourth respondent
before the CAT, and has further directed the CAT, to expeditiously look into
the question of the proportionality of the penalty imposed as well the effect
of the said corrigendum of 26th May, 2017 to order dated 28th July, 2016.
3. The solitary submission made on behalf of the appellant is to the effect
that she does not have the locus to seek enhancement of the penalty imposed
upon the fourth respondent, except in a proceeding under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. To buttress her submission, our attention has been
invited to a decision of this Court in "Samridhi Devi vs. Union of India &
Ors." reported as ILR (2005) II DELHI 911.
4. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the impugned order, we find ourselves unable to agree with the
contention raised on behalf of the appellant. We say so for the reason that a
plaint reading of the directions contained in the impugned order and
particularly paragraph 4 thereof, leaves no manner of doubt that the appellant
has been permitted to raise the issue of proportionality of the penalty
imposed on the fourth respondent before the CAT and the latter has been
further directed to expeditiously look into the matter, in accordance with
law.
5. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order does not
warrant any interference by this Court in appeal and the same is accordingly
dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 24, 2018
rs
