Delhi High Court
R.R. Meena (Ram Roop Meena) vs South Delhi Municipal ... on 20 May, 2022
$~9
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 20.05.2022
+ W.P.(C) 2574/2020 and CM Nos. 8952/2020 & 8956/2020
R.R. MEENA (RAM ROOP MEENA) ..... Petitioner
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Ms. Alisha Saini and Ms.
Ridam Arora, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocates
for R-1/SDMC
Mr. Anand Prakash, Standing Counsel with Ms.
Varsha Arya and Mr. Akhil Raj, Advocates for R-
6/NDMC
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 28.01.2020 in O.A.
2944/2019 and further seeks quashing and setting aside of order dated
13.09.2019 whereby Petitioner was directed to be compulsorily retired
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:23.05.2022 16:29:17
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
and further seeks reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
2. Petitioner had been appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in
Municipal Corporation of Delhi in 1998. At the relevant time of
passing of the impugned order of compulsory retirement, he had risen
to the rank of Executive Engineer (Civil).
3. By order dated 13.09.2019, Competent Authority in exercise of
the powers conferred by Fundamental Rule (FR for short) 56(j) and
Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 directed compulsory retirement
of the Petitioner with immediate effect.
4. An Internal Review Committee was constituted to consider the
report of the Vigilance Department with regard to several officers.
The Internal Review Committee in its decision taken on 13.09.2019,
inter alia, recommended that in cases of officials against whom, in
their entire service, two or three major penalties had been imposed, be
made to compulsorily retire.
5. As per the Respondents, Petitioner fell in the said category
where more than two major penalties had been imposed. The "Review
of Mechanism to ensure probity of Government servants and
strengthening of Administration by undertaking periodic review under
FR 56(j) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972" was undertaken
and in respect of the Petitioner, the recommendation was to
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:23.05.2022 16:29:17
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
compulsorily retire the Petitioner from service.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, inter alia, submits that the
Respondents could not have adopted the procedure of taking the entire
career into account but should have restricted it to a maximum period
of five years during which period Petitioner had exemplary service
and had even been promoted.
7. Learned counsel, however, without prejudice, submits that even
if the three alleged major penalties were taken into account, Petitioner
had been exonerated in two and in respect of third, the major penalty
has been converted by the Central Administrative Tribunal into a
minor penalty.
8. Learned counsel relies on an office order dated 22.10.2020
passed by the Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation
wherein the Commissioner has dropped the charges which were
emanating from the charge-sheet dated 26.11.2009. He submits that
the Commissioner by order dated 16.08.2021 (signed on 12.08.2021)
has quashed the penalty order dated 03.05.2007 on the ground of the
incompetence of the officer who had imposed the penalty.
9. Further, learned counsel relies on the decision of the Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 05.11.2020 in O.A. 4513/2017
whereby the Tribunal has modified the penalty to the extent that it
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:23.05.2022 16:29:17
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
would be without cumulative effect, which implies that the
punishment has been converted from major penalty to minor penalty.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner thus contends that in view of
the above referred three orders, two office orders of the Commissioner
and the third of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the very
substratum of the order passed against the Petitioner for compulsory
retirement has been removed and consequently, the order of
compulsory retirement is no longer sustainable.
11. In view of the fact that two of the orders imposing major
penalties have been set aside by the Commissioner himself and the
third order imposing major penalty has been converted into an order
imposing minor penalty, we are of the considered view that the
Respondent/Corporation needs to re-examine the case of the Petitioner
and to reconsider as to whether the Petitioner still falls in the category
of cases where order of compulsory retirement should have been
passed.
12. This order of remit is being passed in view of the fact that in the
periodic review undertaken on 13.09.2019, there were instances where
there were some officers who had less than two major penalties or no
major penalty and a different view was taken by the Corporation qua
the said officers.
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:23.05.2022 16:29:17
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
13. In view of the above, this petition, along with the pending
applications is disposed of directing the Respondents to pass a fresh
speaking order, within a period of six weeks from today.
14. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. It would
be open to the Petitioner to avail of his remedy in accordance with
law, if aggrieved, by any subsequent order passed by the Corporation.
15. Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
MAY 20, 2022
'yg'
Signature Not Verified
Digital Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:23.05.2022 16:29:17
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
