W P (C.) 2412 of 2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2412/2010 % Date of Decision: 27.04.2010 Municipal Corporation of Delhi …. Petitioner Through Ms.Shobha Gupta & Mr.Pushp Saini, Advocates. Versus Sh.V.K.Jain …. Respondent Through Mr.S.S.Tiwari, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * By a common order dated 8th December, 2009, O.A. No.1223 of 2009, tilted as ‘S.R.Hassan v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & another’, O.A.No.1224 of 2009, titled as ‘R.S.Mehta v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & another’, O.A.No.1299 of 2009, tilted as ‘B.L.Sharma v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & another’ & O.A.No.1380 of 2009, tilted as ‘V.K.Jain v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & another’, were disposed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi by setting aside the order passed by the petitioner treating the period from W P (C.) 2412 of 2010 Page 2 of 4 the date their dismissal order was set aside and treating the period thereafter as not spent on duty on account of deemed suspension and directing the petitioner to decide this period in accordance with rules by passing a speaking order. Against the order dated 8th December, 2009 passed in O.A. No.1223 of 2009, tilted as ‘S.R.Hassan v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & another’, a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2524 of 2010 was filed which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 19th April, 2010. This Court had held that the employees in various petitions were not placed under suspension and the dismissal order was modified to reduction of scale of pay by two stages by the appellate authority. Regulation 5(5) of DMC Services (Control & Appeal), Regulation 1959 contemplates that where a penalty of dismissal is set aside and it is decided to hold a further enquiry against an employee on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal was originally imposed, such officer or employee shall be deemed to have been placed under deemed suspension from the date of the original order of the dismissal. This cannot be disputed by the petitioner that after the orders of the dismissal have been set aside by the appellate authority, it was not decided to hold any further enquiry against the respondent on the allegations on which penalty of dismissal was imposed. If that be so, the W P (C.) 2412 of 2010 Page 3 of 4 petitioner had no occasion to place the respondent under deemed suspension under Regulation 5(5) of DMC Services (Control & Appeal), Regulation, 1959, and therefore, the petitioner could not impugn the order of the Tribunal on the ground that it is in violation of Regulation 5(5) of DMC Services (Control & Appeal), Regulation 1959. The petitioner also cannot justify deemed suspension on the basis of FR No.54 of Fundamental Rules and in any case after the appellate authority had modified the order of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority could not pass further order placing the respondent under deemed suspension unless the fresh enquiry or enquiry from the stage of dismissal was contemplated. Therefore, for the same reason as detailed in W.P.(C) No.2524 of 2010, titled as ‘Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sh.S.R.Hassan’ decided on 19th April, 2010 against the order dated 8th December, 2009, which is also impugned in the present writ petition, the writ petition of the petitioner is without any merit. There is no illegality, irregularity or any such perversity in the order of the Tribunal which will necessitate any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. W P (C.) 2412 of 2010 Page 4 of 4 The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is without any merit, and therefore, it is dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. APRIL 27, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. ‘VK’