Delhi High Court
Ajay Mehrotra vs Management Development ... on 14 March, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 14, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2387/2018
AJAY MEHROTRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ajay Bharti and Mr.Vijay Kumar,
Advocates
versus
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE,
(MDI) AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajat Arora, Advocate for R-1 and R-
5
Mr.Ashim Sood, CGSC and Ms.Payal
Chandra, Advocate for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Impugned order of 14th February, 2017 (Annexure P-18) inflicts
penalty of dismissal from service upon petitioner and the Appellate
Authority vide order of 22nd September, 2017 (Annexure P-20) dismisses
petitioner's appeal. Thereafter, petitioner had sought review of the
penalty which also stands declined vide order of 4th November, 2017
(Annexure P-22).
2. At the outset, there is an objection of territorial jurisdiction raised
by counsel for first and fifth respondent. It is pointed out that petitioner
was working as Administrative Officer in the respondent-Institute in
Gurgaon when he was departmentally proceeded against and the
Disciplinary Authority of respondent-Institute is also located in Gurgaon,
Haryana. It is further pointed out that Appellate Order (Annexure P-20)
has been also passed in Gurgaon and there is no provision of filing a
review. So, it is submitted by learned counsel for first and fifth
respondent that petitioner ought to approach the court of competent
territorial jurisdiction to seek the relief as sought in this petition. To
submit so, reliance is placed upon a Division Bench decision of this Court
in Bernard D'mello Vs. Industrial Finance Corpn. Ltd. 2006 (92) DRJ
739.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is evident from the
suspension order that petitioner during the period of his suspension was
required to report in the Delhi office of respondent-Institute. Petitioner's
counsel places reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in
Dr.Mukul Gupta Vs. Management Development Institute & Anr. (2015)
219 DLT 321 (DB) to submit that in case of respondent-Institute, it has
been held that this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the writ
petition.
4. To rebut the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for respondent-
Institute submits that the decision in Dr.Mukul Gupta (supra) is of no
avail as in the said case, decision to terminate the service was taken by
the Board at Delhi and whereas in the instant case, the entire cause of
action has arisen in Gurgaon, Haryana.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, material on record
and the decisions cited, I find that merely because registered office of
respondent is in Delhi, it would not vest this Court with the jurisdiction to
entertain this petition as substantial cause of action had arisen in
Gurgaon. Not only termination order but even the Appellate Order has
been passed by the Competent Authority at Gurgaon. The rationale to
ask petitioner to report in the Delhi office during the period of suspension
is that the complainant and the delinquent officer may not be at one
station in the instant case which relates to sexual harassment at work
place.
6. In view of the decision in Bernard D'mello (supra), it is declared
that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this
petition. The decision in Dr.Mukul Gupta (supra) is distinguishable as in
the said decision, the termination order was passed in Delhi whereas in
the instant case, it has been passed in Gurgaon, Haryana.
7. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is not entertained with liberty
to petitioner to approach the court of competent territorial jurisdiction.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 14, 2018
mamta
