Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. R.L.Meena vs Lieutenant Governor on 7 August, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No.3602 of 2012
New Delhi this the 7th day of August, 2014
Honble Mr. Ashok Kumar, Member (A)
Honble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
Dr. R.L.Meena
S/o Late Shri Gillu Ram Meena,
R/o B-31 Green Valley,
HUDA, Sector 41-42 Gurukull Road,
Faridabad,
Haryana, NCR 121003 Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Alka Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Lieutenant Governor,
Lt. Governors Secretariat,
Raj Niwas
Delhi-110054
2. The Chief Secretary,
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
GNCT, Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi.
3. Secretary Cooperation,
Cooperative Department,
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi.
4. Registrar of Cooperative Society,
Office of RCS, Parliament Street,
New Delhi
5. Shri G.P.Singh,
Addl. Registrar. Cooperative Societies,
GNCTD, Old Court Building,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001
Delhi
Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Amit Anand)
O R D E R
Ashok Kumar, Member (A):
The applicant is aggrieved by Notification dated 26.07.2012 (Annexure A-1) by which he was removed and relieved from the post of Member, Delhi Cooperative Tribunal (DCT for short) with immediate effect.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the applicant was appointed as a Member of DCT on 19.04.2010 for the tenure of three years. He thereafter faced difficulties due to shortage of staff and lack of infrastructure for which the applicant wrote various letters from 16.07.2010 to 22.11.2011 (Annexure A-5 to A-9) to the respondents apprising shortage of staff and infrastructure as it was hampering the functioning of DCT. In the meanwhile, Writ Petition No.1207/2012 was filed by one Shri B.P.Rao wherein the order dated 07.12.2011 passed by the Tribunal was challenged as well as the allegations made. It was pointed out that neither the applicant nor the Chairman against whom the allegations had been made, were impleaded as a party in the said writ petition. Thereafter, without issuing any show cause against him and providing any opportunity to him, the respondents issued impugned Notification dated 26.07.2012 removing the applicant along with the Chairman from the respective posts with immediate effect.
3. Following reliefs have been sought in the OA:-
(a) To issue an appropriate order or direction for quashing the decision of Respondents dated 26.07.2012 of removing the applicant from the post of Member of the said Tribunal and as further such removal of the applicant is stigmatic in nature;
(b) To issue an appropriate order directing the Respondents to permit the applicant to join back to the post of member of the said Tribunal for the remaining tenure and further direct to pay salary and other benefits as applicable.
(c) Issue such other/direction as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The main grounds urged are that the impugned order was issued without assigning any reason, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and without hearing the applicant which is against the principles of natural justice. His entire career as an IAS officer in the State Cadre has been brilliant and outstanding and without any stigma and hence his removal without affording any opportunity to him has caused serious miscarriage of justice. It also casts a stigma and such order is not sustainable in the eye of law. No show cause notice was issued to him. Referring to Rule 12 of the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal Rules,2006 ( for short DCT Rules, 2006), it has been contended that as per the provision of this Rule which deals with the removal of the Chairman or Member of the Tribunal, they shall not be removed from his office except by an order made by the Lieutenant Governor. In this case, such powers have been exercised by delegating such powers to Registrar, Cooperative Societies which is not permissible under law and the impugned order was communicated by the Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies who comes lower in the hierarchy as compared to that of applicant. Reference has been made to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Shekhar Ghosh Vs. UOI & Ors. (2007 (1) SCC 331 in which it has been held that when a mistake is sought to be rectified, principles of natural justice should be followed which has not been done in this case. It has also been urged that the issue of insufficient staff and infrastructure was taken up repeatedly with the respondents who had failed to address the issue for which the work was suffering, and subsequently without affording any opportunity to the applicant, he was removed in an unprecedented manner.
5. In their counter reply, respondents have admitted that the applicant was appointed after following the procedure under the rules with the approval of Honble Lieutenant Governor for a period of three years. They have referred to W.P. (C) No.1207/2012 (B.P. Rao and Anr. Vs. Delhi Cooperative Tribunal and Ors.) in which the Honble Delhi High Court made certain observations about the working of the Member of Delhi Cooperative Tribunal, and directed Shri Najmi Waziri , standing counsel to review the orders passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal in the last six months. They have cited the observations of the Honble High Court, which has been reproduced in para 4.12 of the counter reply and have stated that in view of the adverse observations made by the Honble Delhi High Court, the applicant was removed under Rule 12 of DCT Rules, 2006. It has been stated that the applicant was removed with the approval of the Hon. Lt. Governor i.e. the competent authority under the aforenoted Rule. The unsatisfactory manner in which the applicant conducted himself in a judicial proceeding in the Tribunal was observed by the Honble Delhi High Court and it is for these reasons that the applicant had to be removed after due approval of the Honble Lt. Governor.
6. Both sides were heard. Learned counsel Ms. Alka Sharma appeared for the applicant and Shri Amit Anand for the respondents. The applicant has filed correspondence made with the respondents regarding supply of staff infrastructure and copies of judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C ) 1695/2012 and CM No.3724/2012 (stay) dated 26.03.2012 as well as the copy of order in W.P. ( C) No.1207/2012 and CM NO.2617/2012 (stay).
7. The respondents have also filed a copy of judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in W.P. ( C) No.1207/2012.
8. We have perused the pleadings and documents on record and considered the arguments of both parties.
9. It appears that vide impugned Notification dated 26.7.2012 (Annexure A-1), the applicant was removed under Rule 12 (2) of DCT Rules, 2006. Rule 12 of DCT Rules,2006 (Annexure A-2 (Colly.) which provides as follows:-
12. Resignation and removal.-(1) Chairman or a member of the Tribunal may, by notice in writing under his hand addressed to the Lieutenant Governor, resign his office:
Provided that unless he is permitted by the Lieutenant Governor to relinguish his office sooner, he shall continue to hold office until the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such notice or until a person duly appointed as his successor enters upon his office or until the expiry of his term of office, whichever is the earliest.
The Chairman or any member shall not be removed from his office except by an order made by the Lieutenant Governor. The removal of applicant under Rule 12(2) of DCT Rules, 2006 was legally permissible since the said order was made with the approval of Honble Lt. Governor. It is also evident from the reading of the impugned order that it was only signed by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies as under:
By order and in the name of the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi sd/G.P.Singh, Addl.Registrar, Cooperative Socieities. The Addl. Registrar, Cpp[eratove Societies thus only communicated to the applicant the order approved by the Honble Lt. Governor.
10. We have perused the judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court in the matter of B.P.Rao (Supra). It appears that the said writ petition was directed against the Order dated 07.12.2011 and the Honble High Court had observed that the first part of the order is a verbatim reproduction of the appeal. The written submissions of the respondents appear to have, thereafter, been reproduced verbatim and the conclusion was contained in one paragraph. The Honble High Court observed that there is, thus, no doubt, in our mind, that there cannot be a graver case of non-application of mind and absence of any reasons in the order. Finding the order as devoid of any reasoning, the same was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh adjudication. The observations of the Honble Delhi High Court are reproduced below:-
We are pained to note the manner in which the Tribunal has conducted itself. Despite the inadequacies, the Tribunal, in our view, cannot conduct judicial proceedings in such a cavalier manner. If there were such inadequacies, it should have been brought to the notice of the concerned authorities or the Chief Justice of this Court, for necessary action and not to conduct judicial proceedings in this manner. It appears further that on 07.05.2012, the Standing Counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi submitted that in view of the orders of the Honble Delhi High Court on 29.02.2012, and the status report submitted thereafter by him post scrutiny of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the last six months, the Government of NCT of Delhi had proposed to advise the Lt. Governor appropriately and the decision of the Lt. Governor to be placed before the Bench by the next date. It was in this background that the respondents thereafter took the decision to exercise powers under Rule 12(2) of DCT Rules, 2006 to remove the applicant as Member, DCT.
11. In view of above and in the light of the observations of the Honble Delhi High Court which led to the decision of removal of the applicant as Member of DCT, we do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. We have noticed above that the said decision was taken at a competent level with the approval of the Honble Lt. Governor, Delhi and was done under the powers vested under Rule 12(2) of DCT Rules, 2006. There is, therefore, no scope of interfering with the impugned order.
12. For the reasons aforenoted, OA cannot be allowed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Ashok Kumar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/usha/