Allowed

Sandeep Govindan v. Board of Discipline & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Apr 2024W.P.(C)/11456/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a disciplinary order that held the petitioner's complaint was an attempt to extort favor from his former employer. The Court removed observations casting personal aspersions on the petitioner as unsubstantiated.

What did the court decide?

Observations casting personal aspersions on the petitioner in the impugned order were removed.

Sandeep Govindan Vs Board of Discipline & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11456/2023

¶4

SANDEEP GOVINDAN ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Petitioner-in-person

¶6

versus

¶7

BOARD OF DISCIPLINE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. D. Bhattacharyya and Ms. Deeti Ojha, Advocates for R-2 and 3.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶9

O R D E R % 09.04.2024

¶10

The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging an Order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the Board of Discipline, Institute of Company Secretaries of India. The Petitioner is aggrieved by certain findings made in paragraph 5 of the impugned order which reads as under:-

¶11

“5. The Director (Discipline] vide prima fade opinion doled 18^th September, 2020, opined (hot it is ostensibly clear that the allegations or the grievances, if any of the Complainant are against the Company from which the Complainant has been terminated as on employee. The allegations/grievances ore nothing but the consequences of the dispute of the Complainant with the management of M/s. Renault Nissan Technology and Business Centre Indo Private Limited and it is a matter between the employer and the employee. The action of the Complainant is apparently on attempt to extort favour from the Company and consequently, the Respondent is being dragged into this matter,

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2024 at 12:08:59

¶14

aberrantly. There is no substance in the complaint which leads the Respondent responsible and therefore. the Respondent is prima ladle 'Not Guilty' of professional or other misconduct under the Company Secretaries Act, 1980. ”

¶15

The Petitioner states that the observations made by the Disciplinary Committee that the Petitioner has filed the present complaint only because of the grievances of the Petitioner against the company is not borne out of the records of the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority could not have made any adverse comments on the intentions of the Petitioner to file the complaint before the Institute of Company Secretaries of India.

¶16

This Court finds substance in the grievance of the Petitioner. It is made clear that all the observations made in the impugned order casting personal aspersions on the Petitioner will stand removed and will not come in his way in any other proceedings pending (by or against) the Petitioner.

¶17

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.

¶18

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶19

APRIL 9, 2024 hsk

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2024 at 12:08:59

Sandeep Govindan v. Board of Discipline & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Govindan v. Board of Discipline & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Prime International Exports Vs E.P.F.A. Tribunal & Anr.

Shajid Vs Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital & Anr.

Food Corporation of India Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Smt. Sunita Sehgal Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Mic Hajj Cell Vs Union of India

Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Sabharwal Vs Delhi Jal Board & Ors.

Sumit Chaudhary Vs Municipal Corporation of Delh and Ors.

Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. Vs M/S. Sck Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Shajid Vs Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital & Anr.

Amar Singh Vs Sanjay and Ors.

Aarti Karnani Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shree Gandhi Ashram Vs Shri Anil Sankhwal & Anr.

Alok Malhotra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sharanjeet Kaur Vs Idbi Bank Ltd.