Dismissed

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

Delhi HC14 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/2387/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court held it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging dismissal from service and appellate orders passed in Gurgaon, despite the petitioner's suspension requiring reporting to Delhi, distinguishing earlier reliance on Dr.Mukul Gupta.

What did the court decide?

The petition was not entertained with liberty to approach the court of competent territorial jurisdiction.

Ajay Mehrotra Vs Management Development… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Order: March 14, 2018

¶3

W.P.(C) 2387/2018

¶4

AJAY MEHROTRA ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr.Ajay Bharti and Mr.Vijay Kumar, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, (MDI) AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rajat Arora, Advocate for R-1 and R- 5

¶8

Mr.Ashim Sood, CGSC and Ms.Payal Chandra, Advocate for R-2

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

(ORAL)

¶12

Impugned order of 14^th February, 2017 ( Annexure P-18 ) inflicts penalty of dismissal from service upon petitioner and the Appellate Authority vide order of 22^nd September, 2017 ( Annexure P-20 ) dismisses petitioner’s appeal. Thereafter, petitioner had sought review of the penalty which also stands declined vide order of 4^th November, 2017 ( Annexure P-22 ).

¶13

At the outset, there is an objection of territorial jurisdiction raised

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

W.P.(C) No.2387/2018

¶16

by counsel for first and fifth respondent. It is pointed out that petitioner was working as Administrative Officer in the respondent-Institute in Gurgaon when he was departmentally proceeded against and the Disciplinary Authority of respondent-Institute is also located in Gurgaon, Haryana. It is further pointed out that Appellate Order ( Annexure P-20 ) has been also passed in Gurgaon and there is no provision of filing a review. So, it is submitted by learned counsel for first and fifth respondent that petitioner ought to approach the court of competent territorial jurisdiction to seek the relief as sought in this petition. To submit so, reliance is placed upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Bernard D’mello Vs. Industrial Finance Corpn. Ltd. 2006 (92) DRJ 739.

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is evident from the suspension order that petitioner during the period of his suspension was required to report in the Delhi office of respondent-Institute. Petitioner’s counsel places reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Dr.Mukul Gupta Vs. Management Development Institute & Anr. (2015) 219 DLT 321 (DB) to submit that in case of respondent-Institute, it has been held that this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

¶18

To rebut the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for respondentInstitute submits that the decision in Dr.Mukul Gupta (supra) is of no avail as in the said case, decision to terminate the service was taken by the Board at Delhi and whereas in the instant case, the entire cause of

¶19

W.P.(C) No.2387/2018

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

action has arisen in Gurgaon, Haryana.

¶22

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that merely because registered office of respondent is in Delhi, it would not vest this Court with the jurisdiction to entertain this petition as substantial cause of action had arisen in Gurgaon. Not only termination order but even the Appellate Order has been passed by the Competent Authority at Gurgaon. The rationale to ask petitioner to report in the Delhi office during the period of suspension is that the complainant and the delinquent officer may not be at one station in the instant case which relates to sexual harassment at work place.

¶23

In view of the decision in Bernard D’mello (supra), it is declared that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. The decision in Dr.Mukul Gupta (supra) is distinguishable as in the said decision, the termination order was passed in Delhi whereas in the instant case, it has been passed in Gurgaon, Haryana.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is not entertained with liberty to petitioner to approach the court of competent territorial jurisdiction.

¶25

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶26

MARCH 14, 2018 mamta

¶27

Page 3 of 3

¶28

W.P.(C) No.2387/2018

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Indian Institute of Technology Delhi