Delhi High Court - Orders
North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Shri Rajesh Kumar Taneja & Anr on 31 August, 2021
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh
$~20 (2021)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9223/2021
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Standing Counsel
with Mr. A.S. Singh, Mr. Amit Sinha and Ms.
Sharanya Sinha, Advocates.
versus
SHRI RAJESH KUMAR TANEJA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Advocate for
respondent no.2/Commissioner of East Delhi
Municipal Corporation.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
ORDER
% 31.08.2021 [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19] CM APPL. 28721/2021
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 9223/2021 and CM APPL. 28720/2021[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking stay on the operation of the impugned order]
2. Mr. R.V. Sinha, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that, the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short „the Tribunal‟), via the impugned judgment dated 11.01.2021, passed in OA No.3552/2019, has quashed the charge memo dated 28.11.2019, and also directed the petitioner to consider the name of respondent no.1 for appointment, as Chief Engineer, albeit, on ad hoc basis.
W.P.(C) 9223/2021 page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:04.09.2021 13:05:41 2.1. To be noted, the judgment passed by the Tribunal was a common judgment, concerning OA Nos. 3552/2019 and 3543/2019. The first OA assailed the charge memo dated 28.11.2019, while, in the second OA, relief was sought by the respondents for being considered for promotion, as indicated hereinabove.
2.2. The record shows that, the aforementioned charge memo was issued to respondent no.1 for failing to demolish an illegal structure, wherein, a hotel going by the name of 'Arpit Palace' was being run. 2.3. The record shows that on 12.02.2019, there was fire in the aforesaid premises, which caused the death of 17 persons. 2.4. Mr. Sinha says that, the fact, that there was an illegal construction and the health trade licence was wrongly issued to the aforementioned hotel, led to disciplinary proceedings being triggered, not only against respondent no.1, but several other officials as well. In this regard, Mr. Sinha has drawn our attention to page 119 of the case file.
2.5. To be noted, Hotel Arpit Palace came up in and around May 1993. Between May 1993 and May 2006, several times, the subject structure had been flagged for demolition. It appears that, a cosmetic demolition was carried out; however, the structure, although, built contrary to the bye laws, remained, substantially, intact 2.6. According to Mr. Sinha, respondent no.1 was posted as an Executive Engineer in the Building department in the concerned area i.e., Karol Bagh zone for six months or so between 26.11.1999 to 30.05.2000. 2.7. Mr. Sinha says that, respondent no.1 failed to take, during the aforementioned period, effective steps for demolition of unauthorizedly constructed structure, which formed part of Hotel Arpit Palace.
W.P.(C) 9223/2021 page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:04.09.2021 13:05:41 2.8. Mr. Sinha goes on to say that, the impugned judgment has not only impacted the disciplinary proceedings, initiated against respondent no.1, but also impacted the disciplinary proceedings, which the petitioner has initiated, against the other officers qua the fire incident, which occurred on 12.02.2019.
3. To our minds, the matter requires consideration.
4. Accordingly, issue notice.
4.1. Mr. Manu Chaturvedi accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2, which is, in effect, the East Delhi Municipal Corporation. 4.2. On steps being taken, notice shall issue to respondent no. 1, via all permissible modes including e-mail.
4.3. Counter-affidavit(s) will be filed, within four weeks of service being effected. Rejoinder(s) thereto, if any, will be filed before the next date of hearing.
5. List the matter on 03.02.2022.
6. In the meanwhile, the operation of the impugned order dated 11.01.2021, passed in OA No.3552/2019, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TALWANT SINGH, J AUGUST 31, 2021 tr Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 9223/2021 page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:04.09.2021 13:05:41