Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Govt. Of Nctd on 1 December, 2017
1
OA No.4124/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A No.4124/2017
Reserved On:24.11.2017
Pronounced on:01.12.2017
Hon'ble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Rakesh Kumar Gupta (VH)
Emp. ID 19900636
Vice Principal under suspension by order of
Chief Secretary, GNCT Delhi dated 08.05.2017
Although compliance of Hon'ble Tribunal's
order dated 02.06.2017 in OA No.2016/2017
is still awaited, GBSSS (1106011), New Semmpuri, Delhi)
S/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Gupta
Aged about 52 years old
Department: DOE GNCTD Employee Group 'A'
R/o 30/LG-I, Teachers Apartments, Block-A
Dilshad Colony,
Delhi-110095.
Mobile No.8130071344
Emails:[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected] ..Applicant
(Applicant in person)
Versus
GNCT Delhi and Others ..........Through
Shri Madan Laxman Ambhore (Employee ID 19980965)
Retired on 31.07.2017 & X DDE-N)
R/o 1076, MIG Flat, East of Loni Road,
Delhi-110093
(Mob. 9891440068) through present DDE N-E/The
Dy. Director of Education District North East
GNCT Delhi,
O/o the DDE N-E GNCT Dehi,
RPVB, B-Block, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110053
Ph.23913223.
Emails: [email protected],
2
OA No.4124/2017
[email protected] ...Respondents
ORDER
By Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A) Heard the applicant, who appears in person and perused the pleadings.
2. The applicant has filed this Original Application (OA) seeking the following reliefs:-
"8.1. To allow this OA with immediate granting required admissible fair justice and relieves to applicant by immediate quashing and setting aside to Respondent's impugned Memorandum No. DE/Distt.NE/Z-VI/CC- 91/OA/2696/2015/562 Dated 14.10.2016 with retrospective effect in the interest of fair justice because it is issued with several misleading & false facts without referring relevant rules, circulars and supporting legal and valid documents as per "Rule of Law" by intentionally ignoring available all relevant facts and grounds in applicant's Email Representation Dated 10.02.2015 (Annexure "A-1") just only for wrongly fixing responsibilities on applicant for all previous and present unlawful acts of concerned authorities regarding him since 2007 till date.
OR To call for the whole records of the case before this Hon'ble Tribunal for granting admissible fair justice and relieves to applicant by immediate quashing and setting aside to Respondent's impugned Memorandum No. DE/Distt.NE/Z-VI/CC-91/OA/2696/2015/562 Dated 14.10.2016 with retrospective effect in the interest of fair justice.
8.2. Respondent be directed to pay the enough cost and compensation of present litigation to applicant specially for knowingly disregarding his Fundamental Rights, several concerned laws, circulars and rules.
8.3. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper also be passed in favour of the applicant for security of justice, principle of natural justice, his Fundamental Rights and disability Rights 3 OA No.4124/2017 specially if it is found that "multiple relieves" are available in present OA".
3. We may mention that the applicant has been consistently filing applications after applications before this Tribunal over the years. We list below some of the cases he has filed:
Sr.No. OA No. Subject
1. 3525/2012 Release of salary
2. 428/2013 Dies-Non
3. 4553/2013 LTC
4. 1/2014 Promotion
5. 144/2014 Attendance report
6. 906/2014 Show Cause Notice
7. 982/2014 MACP
8. 1865/2014 Direction
9. 2750/2014 Posting
10. 3610/2014 Direction
11. 3614/2014 Direction
12. 4722/2014 Direction
13. 93/2015 Direction
14. 1278/2015 Direction
15. 1904/2015 Direction
16. 1905/2015 Direction
17. 2392/2015 Direction
18. 2696/2015 Pay & Allowances
19. 2698/2015 Direction
20. 3118/2015 ACR
21. 3132/2015 Disciplinary
proceedings
22. 439/2016 Disciplinary
4
OA No.4124/2017
proceedings
23. 1462/2016 Recovery
24. 1601/2016 Recovery
25. 1602/2016 Leave
26. 1776/2016 Leave
27. 1990/2016 Pay & allowances
28. 1991/2016 Entry in service
record
29. 2077/2016 Recovery
30. 2344/2016 Recovery
31. 2386/2016 Regularization of
absence period
32. 2538/2016 Pay & Allowances
32A. 2696/2015 For unauthorised
absence
33. 3008/2016 Pay & Allowances
34. 3081/2016 Allowances
35. 3091/2016 Allowances
36. 3123/2016 Pay & Allowances
37. 3128/2016 Pay & Allowances
38. 3130/2016 ACR
39. 3720/2016 Pay & Allowances
40. 3850/2016 Recovery
41. 3890/2016 Disciplinary
proceedings
42. 3978/2016 Leave
43. 3980/2016 Allowances
44. 4063/2016 Pay & Allowances
45. 134/2017 Pay & allowances
46. 309/2017 Pay & Allowances
5
OA No.4124/2017
47. 310/2017 Pay & Allowances
48. 314/2017 Recovery
49. 377/2017 Leave
4. We may mention that in the impugned order dated 14.10.2016 the respondents have passed the order relying on the order dated 03.02.2015 which applicant had already challenged in OA No.2696/2015 which was disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2015. Applicant is in the habit of filing petitions after petitions which is not permissible in law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments.
5. As is evident from the pleadings that, no doubt, the applicant has always tried to twist the matter in such a way that he may be permitted to file fresh OA. Meaning thereby, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the present OA, has been directly and substantially in issue in the earlier OA 2696/2015 (supra) between the same parties. All these issues were considered in one OA or the other.
6. Therefore, the instant OA, is not at all maintainable on the analogy of principle of res judicata under section 11 in general and constructive res judicata in particular, as contemplated in Explanations IV and V of Section 11 of CPC. Explanation-IV postulates that "any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit, shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit". Explanation-V further posits that "any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused". Moreover, the present second OA is hit by principle 6 OA No.4124/2017 contained in Order (II) Rule 2 CPC. Relying upon the general doctrine of res judciata/constructive res judicata and power contained under Order II Rule 2 CPC, which are based on principle of natural justice, the applicant is estopped from filing the instant OA.
7. Moreover, it is now well settled law that a judgment which has decided a similar lis between the parties, which has already attained the finality, should not be unsettled. One should stand by the decision and not to disturb what is settled. The underlying logic of this doctrine is to maintain consistency and avoid uncertainty. The doctrine of stare decisis is a well established valuable principle of precedent. It promotes a certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and helps in the development of the law. Not only that, it provides guidelines for individuals as to what would be the consequences, if they choose the legal action, at the same time, it promotes confidence of the people in the system of the judicial administration as well. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shanker Raju Vs. U.O.I. JT 2011 (1) SC 49 and U.O.I. and Others Vs. Major S.P. Sharma 2014 (6) SCC 351.
8. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. It is not a matter of dispute that the applicant had earlier filed OA No.2696/2015 (supra) challenging the same very order dated 03.02.2015 which he has challenged in the present OA by means of impugned order dated 14.10.2016. Apart from the legal aspect, as discussed hereinabove, the applicant has deliberately concealed this fact from the Tribunal in the present OA. Thus, he is guilty of concealment of 7 OA No.4124/2017 facts and appears to have made an attempt to misuse the process of law. Hence, he has not come to the court with clean hands and is not entitled to any relief on this ground alone in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MCD Vs. State of Delhi and Another (2005) 4 SCC 605. For the indicated reason alone, this OA is liable to be dismissed with cost.
9. Thus seen from any angle, we are of the considered opinion that the instant OA, challenging the same very order dated 03.02.2015 passed in OA No.2696/2-015 (supra) which was upheld in the previous OA by this Tribunal, is not at all maintainable, as it will amount to, sit over as Appellate Court on the previous judgment dated 30.07.2015 of this Tribunal, which is not legally permissible. In case the contrary argument of applicant is accepted, then there will be no end to it.
10. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has dismissed similar second OA No.4128/2013 titled as Dr.P.K. Pandey Vs. U.O.I & Others, being not maintainable and has imposed a cost of Rs.75000/- (Rupees Seventy Five thousand only) vide order dated 18.07.2016.
11. Hence, applicant appears to have made an attempt to misuse the process of law. He is also guilty of concealment of facts. Thus, he has not come to the court with clean hands, he is estopped from doing so by his own act & conduct and the OA deserves to be dismissed with costs but since he is a visually handicapped person, we refrain from doing so. 8 OA No.4124/2017
12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit in the instant OA, which is hereby dismissed in limine.
(NITA CHOWDHURY) (V. AJAY KUMAR) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Rakesh