Delhi High Court
Sanjay Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 22 December, 2020
#S-12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Delivered On: 22.12.2020
W.P.(C) 10412/2020
SANJAY PRATAP SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Shree Prakash Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar & Ms. Santwana, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (OPEN COURT)
CM APPL. 32979/2020 (Exemption) & CM APPL. 32980/2020
(Exemption)
Exemptions granted subject to all just exceptions.
The applications are disposed of accordingly.
W.P.(C) 10412/2020 & CM APPL. 32978/2020 (Stay)
1. The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, has been instituted on behalf of Mr. Sanjay
Pratap Singh, the petitioner and impugns the Order dated 01.12.2020,
in O.A. No. 1939/2020, tilted as 'Sanjay Pratap Singh vs. Union of
India & Ors.', passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal
(for short 'CAT'), Principal Bench, New Delhi.
2. It would be profitable to extract the impugned order dated
01.12.2020, for the effective adjudication of the present writ petition.
"Admit. Issue notice. Shri Gyanendra Singh, learned
counsel, takes notice on behalf of respondents. We
grant four weeks' time to him to file reply.
Post on 06.01.2021."
3. A plain reading of the above extracted impugned Order clearly
reflects that 01.12.2020, was the first hearing in the subject Original
Application, instituted on behalf of the petitioner. The learned CAT
admitted the Original Application and issued notice thereof, to the official
respondents requiring the latter to file reply and thereafter, listed the
Original Application for further proceedings on the 06.01.2021.
4. Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner states that, although he made a prayer seeking ad-interim stay of
the disciplinary enquiry initiated against him by the official respondents,
vide Memorandum dated 12.10.2017, the learned CAT did not consider the
same.
5. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited our
attention to the merits of the case to urge that, the learned CAT erred in not
granting an ad-interim stay qua the disciplinary proceedings, pending
against him.
6. Having perused the impugned Order dated 01.12.2020 and the
material on record, we are of the view that the impugned Order passed by
the learned CAT does not warrant any interference at this stage, since the
merits of the matter are yet to be considered by the learned CAT. It is
always open to the petitioner to press his application seeking interim relief
before the learned CAT, when the matter is taken up for hearing on the
06.01.2021, the returnable date.
7. In view of the foregoing, the present writ petition does not warrant
any interference, at this stage and the same is accordingly dismissed. The
pending application also stands disposed of.
8. A copy of this Judgment be provided to learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the parties electronically and also be uploaded
on the website of this Court, forthwith.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
TALWANT SINGH
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 22, 2020/rs Click here to check corrigendum, if any
