Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Shailendra Kumar vs Delhi Jal Board on 12 October, 2021

Author: Prathiba M. Singh

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

                                                           Signature Not Verified
                                                           Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
                                                           Signing Date:13.10.2021
                                                           14:35:03



$~ A-7 (2019)
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                  RSA 251/2019
       SHAILENDRA KUMAR                                             ..... Appellant
                   Through: None.
                   versus

       DELHI JAL BOARD                                          ..... Respondent
                       Through: None.
       CORAM:
       JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
                 ORDER

% 12.10.2021

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing. CM APPL. 55782/2019 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. RSA 251/2019 & CM APPL. 55779/2019 (for stay)

3. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 9th December, 2019 passed by the Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (hereinafter "Appellate Court") and the impugned judgment/decree therein dated 20th February, 2017, passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court"). Vide these impugned judgments, the Appellant's suit for seeking a perpetual injunction against the Respondent to keep departmental proceedings against him in abeyance, till the conclusion of his criminal case, was rejected. It is noticed in this matter, that there has been no appearance on behalf of the Appellant on 8 th December, 2020 and on 8th February, 2021. The Court has also been informed by the Respondent/Delhi Jal Board on 8th December, 2020, that the Appellant has been dismissed from service.

4. This is a second appeal. There is no assistance from the Appellant in respect of whether any substantial question of law arises. The Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the Appellant had obtained a government job, as an Assistant Chemist that too, on the basis of false certificates. He did not have any professional qualification to do so, and he was involved in the distribution of medicines, which has a serious impact on people's health. Thus, the Appellate Court has upheld the Trial Court's judgment dismissing the suit. The relevant findings of the Trial Court are set out below:

"13) The burden of proving both these issues was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has himself stepped into the witness box and is the sole witness to be examined by him. The plaintiff had to prove the existence of a prima facie case in his favour, as it is imperative that a prima facie case be made out before a court can pass an order of perpetual injunction. He has placed on record original mark sheets to prove his academic credentials.

However, he has not examined any witness from the concerned college/ Bihar Intermediate Education Council to prove the authenticity and veracity of these educational transcripts. Per contra, the defendant has placed on record a litany of documents to assail the authenticity of the documents filed by the plaintiff. The burden was on the plaintiff to examine witnesses to prove that the documents filed by him were of unimpeachable integrity, more so when even criminal charges had also been framed against the plaintiff in other proceedings pertaining to the same documents. Accordingly, the plaintiff's case fails firstly on this ground of non- examination of witnesses to prove the authenticity of the mark sheets filed by him. Secondly, the plaintiff's bald allegation that the documents produced by the defendant were forged and fabricated, is also not proved by him. He ought to have summoned RSA 251/2019 Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:13.10.2021 14:35:03 the officials from the Office of District Magistrate, Chhapra, Saran, Bihar; from Nitishwar Singh College; from Nitishwar Singh Inter- College or from Bihar Intermediate Education Council to controvert the claims of the defendant that the plaintiff had filed forged documents to procure a job with the defendant. Thirdly, he has also not placed any document on record to show that Nitishwar Singh College and Nitishwar Singh Inter- College were distinct entities, even though he had put a suggestion to this effect in the cross- examination of the defendant witness, in his attempt to impeach the defendant's version.

xxx

17). In the instant case, the plaintiff has failed to show that his case involves complicated questions of law and fact, which alone could justify the need to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance. Plaintiff has just made a bald assertion that complicated questions of law and fact were involved, but he has miserably failed to elucidate how.

18). Accordingly, this court is not persuaded to stay disciplinary proceedings till the conclusion of criminal trial. Even the Appellate Court while hearing the appeal against the Order of the trial court on the application of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 had not deemed it fit to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance. It had only restrained the Disciplinary Authority from releasing the report of the departmental proceedings till the suit was finally disposed off.

xxx

21). Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs is being made."

5. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that there is no substantial question of law that arises in this second appeal. In fact, the RSA 251/2019 Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:13.10.2021 14:35:03 Appellant has obtained a job using forged and fabricated documents. This is a serious matter.

6. The Appellant deserves no indulgence and he has since been dismissed from service. The appeal along with pending application is, accordingly, dismissed.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

OCTOBER 12, 2021 mw/ms RSA 251/2019 Page 4 of 4