Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

S.C. Ahuja vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors on 12 March, 2021

Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal

                          $~41
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      W.P.(C) 3203/2021
                                 S.C. AHUJA                                           ..... Petitioner
                                                        Through:   Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate.

                                                        versus

                                 LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.            ..... Respondents
                                              Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
                                                        Counsel GNCTD with Ms. Tania
                                                        Ahlawat, Mr.Nitesh Kumar Singh and
                                                        Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Advocate.
                                                        Mr. Anil Grover, Standing Counsel
                                                        with Mr. Nirvikar Verma, ASC and
                                                        Ms. Noopur Singhal Advocate for
                                                        NDMC.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
                                       ORDER

                          %            12.03.2021
                          [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

1. The petition impugns the order dated 28th October, 2015 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, Delhi in OA No. 2154/2013 preferred by the petitioner as well as the order dated 18th October, 2019 of CAT dismissing M.A. Nos. 3076/2018 and 3077/2018 preferred by the petitioner.

2. OA No. 2154/2013 was preferred impugning the penalty imposed on the petitioner on 25th May, 2012/ 30th October, 2012, of 5 % cut in pension for a period of five years.

3. Vide the impugned order, though the penalty imposed was not interfered with, but the respondents were directed to treat the period of suspension to be 90 days only, with effect from 16 th July, 2008 to 13th October, 2008 and deem the petitioner to be reinstated on 14th October, 2008 and to pay full pay and allowances to petitioner till 23rd October, 2008, when the petitioner was reinstated by respondents; the petitioner superannuated on 31st October, 2008

4. The petitioner after nearly three years in the year 2018 filed M.A. Nos. 3076/2018 and 3077/2018 under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) and under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and for recall of order dated 28th October, 2015respectively and which have been dismissed vide impugned order dated 18th October, 2019 on account of delay.

5. We do not find any explanation whatsoever pleaded in the petition qua the long delay of over five years in impugning the order dated 28 th October, 2015 of CAT, which alone is the substantive order under challenge in this petition.

6. The counsel for the petitioner, on enquiry states that the petitioner, after the order dated 28th October, 2015, was making enquiries under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and only on receiving the response thereto learnt of the mis-statements made by the respondents before CAT, leading to the order dated 28th October, 2015 and of contempt committed by the respondents and accordingly moved M.A. Nos. 3076/2018 and 3077/2018 aforesaid before CAT.

7. On further enquiry, how enquiries under the Right to Information Act could be a substitute for challenge to be made to the order dated 28 th Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA W.P.(C) 3203/2021 Page 2 of 3 ARYA Signing Date:17.03.2021 12:04:54 October, 2015, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner could not have followed both the proceedings. However on further enquiry, which law prohibits making of an enquiry under the Right to Information Act simultaneously with pursuing the remedy of challenging the order of CAT, no answer is forthcoming and the counsel for the petitioner only repeats himself.

8. Not only so, even after the petitioner allegedly learnt for the first time of the mis-statements of the respondent, the petitioner still did not chose to challenge the order 28th October, 2015 and instead preferred to file M.A. Nos. 3076/2018 and 3077/2018 which could not have obtained him the relief as sought, of quashing of the order dated 28th October, 2015 of CAT.

9. Considering that the order under challenge before CAT was only of imposition of penalty of 5 % cut in pension, that too for a period of five years, and considering that the petitioner superannuated on 31st October, 2008, the long delay after which this petition has been filed is not justified.

10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AMIT BANSAL, J MARCH 12, 2021/sr Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA W.P.(C) 3203/2021 Page 3 of 3 ARYA Signing Date:17.03.2021 12:04:54