Allowed

Sh Rameshwar v. Central Warehousing Corporation & Ors.

Delhi HC17 May 2024W.P.(C)/7669/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition to remit the matter to the Appellate Authority for a new hearing. The petitioner was entitled to personal hearing at all stages of disciplinary proceedings. Financial benefits are to be restored within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed to the extent of remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority for a de novo reconsideration of the appeal. Entitlements and financial benefits to be restored within eight

Sh Rameshwar Vs Central Warehousing Corporation & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7669/2021 SH RAMESHWAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sushant Kumar Bhaduri, Mr. Prem Prakash, Ms. Snehalata Jha, Mr. Abid Khan and Mr. Shruyangana Bag, Advocates.

¶3

versus

¶4

CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ORS.

¶5

..... Respondents Through: Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Mr. Iftekhar Ahmad and Ms. Garima Tyagi, Advocates for R-1

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 17.05.2024

¶7

(The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid Mode)

¶8

After some arguments, Mr. Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that since the Appellate Authority appears to have not given a hearing to the petitioner before passing its order dated 24.04.2019, this Court may remit the matter back to the Appellate Authority to consider the issue de novo from the stage when the matter was placed before the Appellate Authority.

¶9

Accordingly, applying the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 1999 (7) SCC 739 as also P unjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Mishra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 wherein it was succinctly held that even de hors the rules and regulations, the charged employee is entitled to personal hearing at all stages of disciplinary proceedings

¶10

This is a digitally signed order. 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 27/05/2024 at 12:58:47

¶11

which would include the proceedings before the Appellate Authority as also the Reviewing Authority.

¶12

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission as also the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court allows the writ petition to the extent of remitting the matter back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider de novo the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Disciplinary Authority’s order dated 28.03.2019.

¶13

It goes without saying that the entitlements of the petitioner as on the date of passing of the Appellate Authority’s order shall stand revived and the consequential financial benefits shall be remitted to him within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶14

The Appellate Authority shall provide a sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who may in case so desired file additional documents before the Appellate Authority in support of his contentions against the Disciplinary Authority’s order dated 28.03.2019.

¶15

It goes without saying that the Appellate Authority shall pass a speaking order giving reasons. The said process may be completed within a period of eight weeks from today. The Appellate Authority shall also furnish a copy of its order/decision within one week of such decision to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said order, if so required.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶17

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶18

MAY 17, 2024/ ns

¶19

Sh Rameshwar v. Central Warehousing Corporation & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh Rameshwar v. Central Warehousing Corporation & 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

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 & Ors.

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 & Ors.

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 & Ors.

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 Delhi & Ors.

Chhavi Vs University of Delhi

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Pankaj Sharma Vs Insurance Ombudsman and Anr.

Sks College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Ors.

Coal India Sc St Employee Association Vs Union of India and Ors.

Minta Elizabeth Varghese Vs Food Safety and Standards Authority of India and Anr.

Sharad Verma Vs the State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Anjali Verma & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Ors.

Ms. Sangeeta. Vs the Delhi United Christian Sr. Sec. School & Anr.

Jit Singh @ Jeet Ram Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi