Dismissed

Gopal v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Delhi HC15 May 2017LPA/365/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal seeking condonation of excessive delay and challenging the denial of back wages upon reinstatement. The court upheld the Single Judge's observation that alcohol consumption by a sanitation worker on duty constitutes serious misconduct warranting denial of back wages.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay and the appeal seeking back wages were dismissed.

Gopal Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

LPA 365/2017 & C.M. No. 18202/2017 GOPAL ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Anita Sahani Meghna De, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

¶7

O R D E R % 15.05.2017

¶8

The appellant has preferred the aforesaid application to seek condonation of delay of 1578 days in re-filing the appeal against the impugned judgment dated 07.12.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6838/2011.

¶9

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on the application for condonation of delay as well as on merits.

¶10

The appellant was initially employed as Safai Karamchari with DDA in the year 1983 as a daily wager. His services were transferred to MCD vide order dated 21.04.1993. He was regularised on 07.09.1995 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1989. It was alleged against the appellant that on 01.09.1999, he abused, manhandled and physically assaulted Sh. Krishan Kumar Gupta, Chief Sanitary Inspector under the influence of liquor during office hours. The

¶11

medical examination of the appellant was got conducted at AIIMS and the report confirmed that he was under the influence of alcohol. An enquiry was conducted wherein the first charge of abusing, manhandling and physical assault was not proved. However, the second charge of the appellant being under the influence of liquor was substantiated. The appellant was accordingly dismissed from service.

¶12

The appellant then approached the Labour Court challenging his dismissal. The Labour Court found that the departmental enquiry against the appellant was fair and proper and in compliance with the principles of natural justice and that the findings returned by the enquiry officer were not perverse. However, on the aspect of proportionality of the punishment, the Labour Court vide an award dated 3.12.2010 held that the punishment of dismissal/termination from service was too harsh and set aside the same. The appellant was directed to be reinstated in service and was denied the back-wages from the date of dismissal till 30 days after the passing of the award dated 03.12.2010 by the Labour Court.

¶13

The appellant then assailed the denial of backwages by preferring a petition being W.P.(C) No. 6838/2011 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 07.12.2012.

¶14

There is no worthwhile reason emerging from the appellant’s seeking condonation of delay of 1578 days apart from stating that the appellant is a poor safai karamchari. In our view, the application seeking condonation of delay is without any merit as the delay has not been sufficiently explained.

¶15

Even otherwise, on merits as well, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has observed and in our view rightly so, that a lenient view has been taken against the appellant while reinstating him in the service without backwages on account of his misconduct of being in an inebriated condition while on service. The learned Single Judge has observed that it is not a valid excuse that the nature of vocation of the appellant is such that it cannot be performed without consumption of liquor. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that looking into the nature of the vocation of the safai karamcharis who clean sewers which are filthy and emanates foul smell and gases, the consumption of liquor may not be treated as a serious misconduct. We cannot accept this submission. There is no basis for the same.

¶16

In view of the fact that the appellant committed the aforesaid serious misconduct, denial of backwages to him while reinstating himself in the service is least of the punishments that could be inflicted upon him.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit either in the application or in the appeal.

¶18

Both are accordingly dismissed.

¶19

VIPIN SANGHI, J

¶20

DEEPA SHARMA, J

¶21

MAY 15, 2017 ss

Gopal v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumit Kumar Vs Director Training and Technical Education Gnct of Delhi and Ors.

Smt Kalawati and Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rajendra Mishra Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ravinder Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Girdhari Choudhari Industrial Training Centre Vs Directorate General of Training & Anr.

New Lal Bahadur Shastri Private Iti Vs Directorate General of Training & Anr.