Delhi High Court - Orders
Arvind Mohan Dwivedi vs Union Of India & Anr on 4 September, 2025
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13597/2025
ARVIND MOHAN DWIVEDI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akhil Solanki, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Saket, SPCG with
Ms. Reya Paul, Mr. Manish
Madhukar, Ms. Shilpa Rajasekhar,
Ms Aparna Tripathi, Advocates for
UOI.
Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Mr. Amit
Duta and Mr. Sainyam Bhardwaj,
Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 04.09.2025
1. The petitioner assails a disciplinary order dated 18.07.2000, by which he was dismissed from service by respondent No. 2 - Education Consultants India Ltd. ["EdCIL"].
2. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted by a chargesheet dated 15.02.2000. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner arose out of an allegation of bigamy. In addition to the charge of bigamy, several other charges were also framed against the petitioner, including an allegation that he had submitted an order of a Family Court, purportedly granting him divorce from his first wife, which was a forged document.
W.P.(C) 13597/2025 Page 1 of 3This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2025 at 23:46:11
3. An inquiry was held pursuant to the chargesheet. In the inquiry report dated 27.04.2020, the Inquiry Officer notes the petitioner's response dated 22.02.2000 to the chargesheet, in which he allegedly admitted the offence.
4. In the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner denied each and every charge in his response and sought a fair opportunity to defend himself, but the inquiry erroneously concluded that he had admitted to the charges. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not placed on record his response to the chargesheet. Although no such contention appears in the writ petition, it is now contended that the reply has been misplaced due to flooding at the petitioner's residence.
5. Mr. Akhil Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submits that, on the basis of the same allegations and the same evidence, the Criminal Court acquitted the petitioner of the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by an order dated 27.09.2023. He therefore submits that EdCIL was duty bound to re- examine the petitioner's dismissal.
6. Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, learned counsel for EdCIL, who appears on advance notice, submits that the inquiry report clearly refers to the petitioner's reply dated 22.02.2000, by which the charges were admitted. She further submits that the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity of appeal against the order of dismissal, despite being informed in the dismissal order itself that an appeal was available before the Board of Directors of EdCIL. She states that the order of the Criminal Court is also not dispositive of the disciplinary proceedings, as it proceeds on the basis of different considerations, particularly on the basis that the complainant W.P.(C) 13597/2025 Page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2025 at 23:46:11 therein did not come forward to give evidence in the criminal proceedings.
7. EdCIL is directed to file an affidavit within two weeks, alongwith the entire record. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.
8. List on 26.09.2025, in the category of "for Admission" matters.
PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 4, 2025 SS/KA/ W.P.(C) 13597/2025 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2025 at 23:46:11