Disposed

Rajesh Kumar v. Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

Delhi HC14 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/1929/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a suspension order enhanced by a Review Committee beyond the statutory 90-day limit. The court directed the respondent to apply principles from Union of India v. Dipak Mali, reconsidering the vacuous explanation for the delay and calling for a speaking order on the petitioner's earlier revocation request.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pass a speaking order on the petitioner's application of 9th November, 2017, within six weeks and communicate the fate within a week.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Indian Institute of Technology Delhi — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Order: March 14, 2018

¶3

¶4

RAJESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Subart, Advocate and Mr.Towseef Ahmad, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Arjun Mitra, Advocate and Ms.Jaskaran Kaur, Advocate

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

(ORAL)

¶10

Vide order of 14^th July, 2017 ( Annexure P-1 ), petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect. The said suspension order was reviewed on 24^th November, 2017 vide office order ( Annexure P-2 ) and it was decided to continue the suspension order and to enhance the subsistence allowance from 50% to 70%. Impugned order of 24^th November, 2017 ( Annexure P-2 ) is assailed in this petition on the ground that the review of suspension has been made beyond the statutory period of 90 days. Reliance is placed by petitioner’s counsel upon Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Vs. Dipak Mali (2010) 2

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

W.P.(C) No.1929/2018

¶13

SCC 22 to submit that subsequent review and extension of suspension beyond the period of 90 days cannot revive the suspension order as it becomes invalid after period of 90 days. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the process of reviewing petitioner’s suspension was initiated on 9^th November, 2017 and the Review Committee vide order ( Annexure P-2) has continued petitioner’s suspension and enhanced the subsistence allowance on petitioner’s application on 24^th November, 2017 and since there was no deliberate delay on part of respondent, so the impugned order deserves to be sustained.

¶14

The decision in Dipak Mali (supra) is sought to be distinguished by respondent’s counsel while pointing out that the suspension in the said case was not extended as the Review Committee was never constituted, whereas in the instant case, petitioner’s suspension has been extended by the Review Committee and in the process some delay has occurred. It is pointed out by respondent’s counsel that petitioner is not participating in the inquiry proceedings which have commenced in February, 2018 and the next date in the inquiry is 20^th March, 2018. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has not received any notice from Inquiry Officer to appear. Petitioner’s counsel has been apprised of the next date of hearing in the inquiry. It is up to petitioner to take effective steps if required or to face the consequences of non-appearance in the inquiry proceedings.

¶15

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, material on record and the decision cited, I find that petitioner vide letter of 9^th November,

¶16

Page 2 of 3

¶17

W.P.(C) No.1929/2018

¶18

2017 had sought revocation of his suspension as by then statutory period of 90 days had lapsed. Impugned order does refer to petitioner’s letter of 9^th November, 2017 but misconstrues it as one seeking enhancement of subsistence allowance. In fact, vide letter of 9^th November, 2017, petitioner had sought revocation of his suspension. Supreme Court in Deepak Mali (supra) had found that the delay in reviewing the suspension was not convincing. In the instant case, the explanation for the delay occasioned is not forthcoming. In such a situation, impugned order of 24^th November, 2017 ( Annexure P-2 ) needs to be reconsidered by the respondent while considering petitioner’s letter of 9^th November, 2017 as the one seeking revocation of the suspension. Respondent is also required to indicate the reason for the delay in carrying out the review of petitioner’s suspension.

¶19

Let a speaking order be passed on petitioner’s application of 9^th November, 2017 by respondent within a period of six weeks and the fate of the said application be made known to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedy as available in law, if need be.

¶20

With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.

¶21

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶22

MARCH 14, 2018 mamta

¶23

Page 3 of 3

¶24

W.P.(C) No.1929/2018

Rajesh Kumar v. Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhmani Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Satyendra Kumar Vs Maharaja Agarsain Public School & Anr.

Voice of Ex Servicemen Society and Ors. Vs Director General of Resettlement Department of Ex Serviceman Welfare Ministry of Defence

Anil Sanghi Vs Income Tax Officer

Deepika Anand Vs Directorate of Edcuation, Delhi & Ors.

Sunny Gupta Vs Union of India and Anr.

Deepak Khosla Vs Registrar General, High Court of Delhi & Ors.

Rosy Blue India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Union of India through Joint Secretary & Anr.

Satyendra Kumar Vs Maharaja Agarsain Public School & Anr.

Bala Pritam Guru Harkishan International Public School Vs Director of Education and Ors.

Dr. Vineet Kumar and Ors. Vs Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology and Anr.

Ataullah Khan Vs Satyawati College and Ors.

Canara Bank Vs the National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Anr.

Ajay Mehrotra Vs Management Development Institute, (Mdi) and Ors.