Delhi High Court
Lalit Kumar Gupta vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 6 May, 2020
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3055/2020 & CM APPLs.10635-36/2020
LALIT KUMAR GUPTA .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shashank S. Mangal,
Advocate
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .. Respondent
Through: Mr. Akhil Mittal, Standing
Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
% 06.05.2020
This matter has been taken up for hearing by video
conferencing.
CM.APPL.10636/2020 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application
stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3055/2020 & CM APPL.10635/2020 (for interim relief)
1. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing
the disciplinary proceedings, pending against him for over 7 years as
on date, on, inter alia, the ground that he has been acquitted in the
criminal proceedings initiated against him on the same charge. It is
pointed out that, on the ground of pendency of the aforesaid
disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner's request for being permitted
to voluntarily retire from service, was also been rejected vide
communication dated 12th December, 2019.
2. The North Delhi Municipal Corporation is notified under
Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and service
matters relating to employees of the said Corporation, therefore, are
amenable to adjudication by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
3. As a consequence, this Court is entirely proscribed, in law, from
entertaining the petitioner's cause as a court of first instance, in view
of para 93 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra
Kumar v U.O.I.1, which reads thus:
"Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our
conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals.
The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires
of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in
discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the
High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our
constitutional set-up, been specifically entrusted with such an
obligation. Their function in this respect is only
supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be
subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective
High Courts. The Tribunals will consequently also have the
power to test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules.
However, this power of the Tribunals will be subject to one
important exception. The Tribunals shall not entertain any
question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following
the settled principle that a Tribunal which is a creature of an
Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional. In
such cases alone, the High Court concerned may be
approached directly. All other decisions of these Tribunals,
rendered in cases that they are specifically empowered to
(1997) 3 SCC 261
adjudicate upon by virtue of their parent statutes, will also be
subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of their respective
High Courts. We may add that the Tribunals will, however,
continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect
of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. By
this, we mean that it will not be open for litigants to directly
approach the High Courts even in cases where they question
the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned,
where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is
challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
concerned."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. The petitioner has necessarily, therefore, to be relegated to his
remedy under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
5. I am informed that, at present, owing to the COVID-19
pandemic, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) is not
functional. Many other judicial fora have, in view of the current
situation, started hearing urgent matters by video conferencing, over
the appropriate web platforms. In view of the complete proscription,
on this Court, entertaining service matters, which are otherwise
amenable to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, as
a court of first instance, it may become highly questionable whether,
even in extremely urgent cases, the High Court could, in the teeth of
the said proscription, entertain a service matter, otherwise amenable to
the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, even if the
case is of extreme urgency.
6. Needless to say, even in service matters, there may conceivably
be cases of pressing urgency, which brook no delay.
7. In view of the fact that, by virtue of the law laid down in L.
Chandra Kumar1, such disputes cannot be urged before the High
Court as a court of first instance, the Hon'ble Chairman of the Central
Administrative Tribunal is respectfully requested to examine the
feasibility of commencing hearing, of urgent matters, by video
conferencing, so that this Court, as also other High Courts, are not
swamped by a deluge of petitions which, otherwise, would lie within
the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
8. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions and in the
above terms. The petitioner would be at liberty to approach the
Central Administrative Tribunal, if so advised.
9. Pending applications also stands disposed of accordingly.
10. Copy of this order shall be uploaded on the website positively
within 24 hours and copy whereof shall also be forwarded to the
counsel for the parties via email.
11. Let a copy of this order be also forwarded to the Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, for being placed
before the Hon'ble Chairman, so that the feasibility and possibility of
hearing urgent matters by video conferencing could be explored.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
MAY 06, 2020
vk
