Dismissed

Himanshu Pande v. Managing Committee of the Banyan Tree School & Ors.

Delhi HC2 Jan 2018W.P.(C)/7870/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged fresh inquiry and suspension following removal set aside by Delhi School Tribunal. Held: Fresh inquiry permitted as earlier set aside on technical grounds. Suspension commenced from initial removal date; subsistence allowance to be paid.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to receive subsistence allowance from 1st March 2016; suspension period deemed to have commenced from that date.

Himanshu Pande Vs Managing Committee of the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Order: January 02, 2018

¶3

W.P.(C) 7870/2017 & CMs. 32542/2017, 36382/2017

¶4

HIMANSHU PANDE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE BANYAN TREE SCHOOL & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Samrat Nigam, Mr. Sandeep Mittal and Ms. Rekha, Advocates for respondents No.1 & 2 Mr. Gautam Narayan, AC and Ms. Mahamaya Chatterjee and Mr. M.I. Khan, Advocates for respondent-DOE

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶9

Vide order of 5^th July, 2017 (Annexure P-1) , petitioner’s suspension has been extended for a period of six months while serving a memorandum of charge of even date upon petitioner. Petitioner’s Representation of 23^rd March, 2016 has been rejected by respondentSchool vide order of 9^th April, 2016 (Annexure P-3) . The challenge to afore-referred orders is on the ground that consequent upon setting aside of petitioner’s removal from service, de novo inquiry is impermissible. While entertaining this petition, initiation of fresh Inquiry was stayed vide order of 6^th September, 2017.

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

W.P.(C) 7870/2017

¶12

Vide order of 29^th February, 2016 (Annexure P-10) , Delhi School Tribunal had set aside order of 18^th August, 2010 vide which petitioner was removed from service. The challenge to impugned orders by learned counsel for petitioner is on the ground that initiation of fresh inquiry was not permitted by Delhi School Tribunal and on the same charges, petitioner cannot be tried twice. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that this Court vide order of 28^th March, 2017 (Annexure P-13) had not permitted respondent-School to initiate fresh inquiry and so, impugned orders deserve to be set aside and petitioner ought to be reinstated in service with consequential benefits.

¶13

On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-School submits that vide order of 28^th March, 2017 (Annexure P-13) fresh inquiry was permitted and so, petitioner has been rightly suspended and has been served with fresh memorandum of charge as penalty of removal from service was set aside by Delhi School Tribunal on a technical ground. To submit so, attention of this Court is drawn to paragraphs No. 26 to 28 & 44 of order of 29^th February, 2016. On instructions, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent-School that fresh inquiry initiated against petitioner would be positively concluded within a period of three months. 4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned orders, the order of 28^th March, 2017 (Annexure P-13) passed in the earlier litigation between the parties and the material on record, I find that earlier writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) 4951/2016 was disposed of as not pressed while taking note of respondent-School’s stand of recommencing inquiry proceedings as the penalty imposed upon petitioner herein was set aside on a technical ground. It is not a case of simplicitor ‘not pressing’ of earlier writ petition

¶14

Page 2 of 4

¶15

W.P.(C) 7870/2017

¶16

by respondent-School. There is no ambiguity or doubt that respondentSchool was permitted to initiate fresh inquiry on the same charges as penalty inflicted upon petitioner was set aside on the ground that the Presenting Officer had appeared as a witness and was also a member of the Managing Committee of respondent-School. Therefore, issuance of fresh memorandum of charge of 5^th July, 2017 is not vitiated as the stand of respondent-School of initiating fresh inquiry on the same charges was not negated in the earlier round of litigation.

¶17

During the course of hearing, it was not disputed that petitioner had been paid subsistence allowance till the penalty of removal from service was inflicted upon him. However, for the period from 1^st March, 2016 till 5^th July, 2017 petitioner has neither been reinstated nor his suspension relates back to 1^st March, 2016. Since this Court is not inclined to quash impugned memo of charge of 5^th July, 2017, therefore, order suspending him for six months from 5^th July, 2017 is not being interfered with, but it is clarified that this period of suspension would commence from 1^st March, 2016 and subsistence allowance since 1^st March, 2016 till date be paid to petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. As regards denial of full salary and allowances w.e.f. 20^th January, 2005 till petitioner’s reinstatement, as ordered by the Delhi School Tribunal, is concerned, I find that impugned letter of 9^th April, 2016 (Annexure P-3) is not required to be tested for the reason that respondent-School is being directed to conclude the fresh inquiry in pursuance of impugned memorandum of 5^th July, 2017 on or before 31^st March, 2018. While repelling petitioner’s challenge to impugned memorandum of charge of

¶18

Page 3 of 4

¶19

W.P.(C) 7870/2017

¶20

5^th July, 2017, this petition and the applications are disposed of with above directions.

¶21

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶22

JANUARY 02, 2018 s

¶23

Page 4 of 4

¶24

W.P.(C) 7870/2017

Himanshu Pande v. Managing Committee of the Banyan Tree School & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Pande v. Managing Committee of the Banyan Tree School & Ors.

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

M/S Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India through Officer in Charge and Its General Manager (T) Mr. K. v

Vijender Singh Vs Edmc and Anr.

Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Prashant Pranav and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Subhash Chander Khatri & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ct/Gd Mahadev Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rohit Deshpande Vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Anr.

Hawa Valves a Company Registered and Incorporated & Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Chand Kaur Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shivani Sharma & Anr. Vs Rajinder Singh & Ors. (United India Insrance Co. Ltd)

Shivani Sharma Vs Rajinder Singh & Ors. (M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd)

Himani Malhotra Vs Indraprastha College for Women & Anr.

Avadhesh Kumar Singh Vs India Oil Corporation Limited

Rohit Deshpande Vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Anr.