Delhi High Court
Suresh Chand And Anr vs Management Of Ramjas College And ... on 5 February, 2018
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: February 05, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 5102/2017
SURESH CHAND AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vikas Nagpal, Advocate.
Versus
MANAGEMENT OF RAMJAS COLLEGE
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arurag Mathur, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Mr.Abhinav
Sharma, Advocates for Respondent
No. 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Vide office orders of 23rd December, 2011 and 30th December,
2011 (Annexure-P5 colly), petitioners, who were working as Lab
Assistant and Office Assistant were suspended on account of criminal
cases being registered against them. Quashing of the aforesaid orders is
sought in this petition on the ground that the petitioners' trial in the
criminal cases has not begun and no departmental inquiry is pending
against the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner
is going to retire within two months and that petitioners ought to be
treated at par with another employee i.e. Dilbag Singh, against whom also
a criminal trial is pending but has not been suspended.
3. In the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent-College, it is stated
that the said Dilbag Singh had failed to inform the College that he was
involved in the grant of admissions to students in the year 2010-11 on the
basis of forged mark sheet and that an FIR was also registered against
him.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-college submits that upon the
aforesaid fact coming to the notice of the college, a show cause notice of
3rd January, 2017 has been issued to said Dilbag Singh and the Governing
Body of respondent-college in its meeting of 24th March, 2017 has
resolved to place said Dilbag Singh under suspension but the decision
taken by the Governing Body of the respondent-college has been annulled
on the ground of respondent-college was not having the requisite quorum.
5. It is pointed out that Dilbag Singh was placed under suspension on
7th March, 2011 as an FIR for the offence of dowry death was registered
against him and he was reinstated on 23rd October, 2015 after he was
acquitted in the criminal case.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-college informs that now the
quorum of the Governing Body is complete.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for Petitioner draws the attention of
this court to respondent-college's Communication of 7th February, 2017
to the University of Delhi, whereby, the term of Trustee nominees of the
Governing Body was extended for a period of 3 months on 1 st January,
2017. So it is submitted by Petitioner's counsel that the Governing
Body's decision suspending Dilbag Singh has been erroneously
withdrawn.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-college clarifies that mere
extension of term of certain Trustee nominees would not make the
quorum of the Governing Body complete and this aspect has no bearing
on the case of petitioners.
9. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the material
on record, I find that respondent-college cannot keep the petitioners under
suspension for an indefinite period. Accordingly, a direction is issued to
respondent-college to disclose as to whether petitioners would be
reinstated with consequential benefits, if they are acquitted in the criminal
cases and if not so, then the respondent-college cannot keep petitioners
under suspension without initiating any departmental inquiry against
them.
10. In light of the aforesaid, the respondent-college is directed to
reconsider the petitioners' suspension within a period of 6 weeks and to
pass a speaking order while dealing with the aforesaid aspects and to
intimate about it to petitioners within a week thereafter, so that, the
petitioners may avail of the remedy as available in law, if need be.
11. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is accordingly
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 05, 2018
j
