Delhi High Court
Rajesh Kumar Jha vs Central Railside Warehouse ... on 21 March, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 21, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2749/2018 & CMs 11184-85/2018
RAJESH KUMAR JHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta and Mr.
Anunaya Mehta, Advocates
versus
CENTRAL RAILSIDE WAREHOUSE COMPANY LIMITED
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gourab Banerji, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Mr. Sahil
Tagotra and Ms. Raka Chatterjee, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Against penalty of 'removal from service', petitioner had preferred
a statutory appeal (Annexure P-11), which is detailed one running into 28
pages.
2. Impugned order of 11th December, 2017 (Annexure P-2) rejects
petitioner's appeal being devoid of merits by simply observing that
miscellaneous contentions raised by petitioner pertaining to his eligibility,
performance, allegations of bias, favouritism, etc., have been found to be
vague, unclear and irrelevant to the charges framed against petitioner.
Impugned order also takes note of the fact that the Recruitment Agency in
its affidavit filed in W.P. (C) 5479/2016 has stated that petitioner
alongwith others is not found eligible in scrutiny at the time of
recruitment.
3. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, petitioner's
appeal (Annexure P-11) and the material on record, I find that it would
not be fair to label petitioner's appeal as vague and unclear nor can the
contents of the appeal be said to be irrelevant to the charges framed
against him. There appears to be no proper application of mind by
appellate authority on petitioner's appeal (Annexure P-11). In the column
of 'Qualification and Experience' of the Advertisement (Annexure P-12),
the pay-scales have been given and their equivalence is 'with Cost to
Company (CTC) of `8 lacs per annum working in a reputed private
organization'. If experience in Government PSUs/Autonomous Bodies,
etc. alone was to be considered, then what was the rationale to provide for
equivalence in the qualification and experience viz-a-viz private sector.
This aspect needs to be properly addressed by appellate authority while
reconsidering impugned order. It would be in the fitness of things if a
speaking and detailed order is passed on petitioner's appeal as petitioner
in the appeal has relied upon the CRWC (Conduct, Discipline and
Appeal) Rules 2012, which take into consideration the experience of
candidates in the private sector as well.
4. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with direction
to Appellate Authority to reconsider impugned order on petitioner's
appeal (Annexure P-11) by passing a speaking order within a period of
twelve weeks and the fate of the reconsideration be made known to
petitioner within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the
remedies as available in law, if need be. Needless to say, all the aspects
raised in this appeal by petitioner have to be dealt with threadbare by
Appellate Authority while reconsidering the impugned order. It is made
clear that any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an
expression on merits by either side.
5. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 21, 2018
s
