Delhi High Court
The Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors vs Kamlesh Rani Bhatla on 9 October, 2019
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 09th October, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 1118/2019
THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC with
Mr. Zahid Hanief, Advocate
versus
KAMLESH RANI BHATLA ..... Respondent
Through Mr. M.S. Saini, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition is directed against an order dated 20.03.2017
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (the 'Tribunal').
2. In this case, the respondent herein was appointed as an Assistant
Teacher on 27.03.1997. On 22.03.2012, the respondent tendered her
request for 'technical resignation'. The petitioners acceded to the
request of the respondent and accepted the resignation on 29.03.2012
w.e.f. 22.03.2012.
3. The respondent subsequently moved an application on 21.04.2012
requesting the D.D.E., South Zone-23 to allow her to withdraw her
resignation and permit her to rejoin duty. Another representation was
made by the respondent on 20.10.2012. Reminders were also issued,
including a reminder dated 13.01.2014. Having received no response
from the petitioners, the respondent filed a writ petition in this Court
which was disposed of on 20.03.2014 with a direction to the petitioners
herein to consider and dispose of the request of the respondent by a
speaking order.
4. The request of the respondent was rejected on 14.05.2015, which led to
the filing of an OA on 04.01.2016. The OA was allowed; which has led
to the filing of the present writ petition.
5. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal
has completely lost track of the fact that the case of the respondent
would not be covered by the case of Nirmal Verma v. MCD & Ors.,
reported at 118 (2005) DLT 665, as in the said case there was no inquiry
pending against the said petitioner, while in this case two articles of
charge were framed against the respondent, which we reproduce below:
"ARTICLE-I
Smt. Kamlesh Rani Batla, Assistant Teacher while working
in Govt. Sarvodya Co-Ed Middle School, J-Block, Sangam
Vihar, New Delhi during the year 2010. She actively
involved in the political party named 'Bahujan Samajwadi
Party'. Thus she violated Rule 5(1) of CCS Conduct Rules,
1964.
ARTICLE-II
Smt. Kamlesh Rani Batla, Assistant Teacher while working
in Govt. Sarvodya Co-Ed Middle School, J-Block, Sangam
Vihar, New Delhi during the year 2010 being a government
official she organized a meeting for the cadres of a political
party (BSP) and has been taking an active part in the
meeting i.e. violating the Rule 5(1) of CCS Conduct Rules,
1964, which is unbecoming of a government servant and
also violating Rule 3 of CCS(CCA) Conduct Rules, 1964."
6. Barring the aforestated ground and the distinction between the facts of
Nirmal Verma (supra) and the respondent herein, no other ground has
been urged.
7. Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the respondent, however submits that
although the articles of charges were framed but no inquiry was
conducted. He further submits that even as per the stand taken by the
petitioners in the writ petition, more particularly in paragraphs 4 and 5,
which we reproduce below, the argument made by the petitioners with
regard to charges having been framed cannot be accepted:
"4. After maneuver, artifice and covert involvement of the
Respondent in politics, Respondent wittily got herself
exonerated and obliterated from charges by way of
resignation framed under Rule 3 of CCS(CCA) Conduct
Rules, 1964 and Rule 5(1) of CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules,
1964 and inquiry initiated under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA),
Rules 1965, thereby, managed to get the vigilance
clearance. The vigilance clearance was given graciously
considering the request for resignation, however, without
anticipating the hoax and nefarious intentions of the
Respondents.
5. Once she was exonerated, the respondent, on 21.04.2012,
moved an application requested D.D.E., South Zone-23, to
withdraw the resignation and allow to join back the duties
of Respondent at earliest..."
8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have considered
their rival submissions.
9. The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 27.03.1997.
She tendered her technical resignation on 22.03.2012 which was
accepted on 29.03.2012. The respondent thereafter sought to withdraw
her resignation. Representations were also made but the same were not
considered and the petitioners finally rejected the request of respondent
for withdrawal of rejection by a speaking order passed on 14.05.2015.
This led to filing of an OA, which the Tribunal has allowed.
10. According to Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, the
respondent was involved in political activities and thus violated Rule 5
(1) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 and Rule 3 of CCS (CCA) Conduct
Rules, 1964. Counsel submits that the respondent, while working as a
Government official, took active part in politics. Mr.Khan has also
submitted that two articles of charge were framed against respondent
and in this backdrop, there is no legal infirmity in the decision rendered
by the petitioners in terms of speaking order dated 14.05.2015.
Mr.Khan has also highlighted that the case of Nirmal Verma (supra)
would not apply to the facts of the present case as in the case of Nirmal
Verma (supra) there was no inquiry pending against the petitioner in
that case.
11. Mr.Saini, on the other hand, has submitted that although two articles of
charges were framed, since admittedly no inquiry was conducted, that
cannot weigh with the Court.
12. In light of the above, we are of the view that although two articles of
charge were framed against the respondent but having regard to the
clear stand taken in the petition, it leaves no room for doubt that no
inquiry was conducted against the respondent and even vigilance
clearance was granted to her. Having regard to the fact that no inquiry
was in fact initiated against respondent, the case of the respondent
would be covered by the decision rendered in the case of Nirmal Verma
(supra). We may note that even at this stage, no material has been
placed before this Court to show that any inquiry is pending against the
respondent or that an inquiry was ever held against her.
13. Accordingly, no ground is made-out to entertain the writ petition. The
writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
CM.APPL 5076/2019(stay)
14. The application is dismissed in view of the order passed in the writ
petition.
G.S. SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
OCTOBER 09, 2019
pst/rb
