MCD Vs. OMPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent no.1 Mr. Ompal was appointed as 'Mali ' with the petitioner – MCD with effect from 1.4.2000. He was appointed as Technical Supervisor on ad hoc basis with effect from 1.4.2002. A DPC meeting was held on 26.11.2010 for making promotion to the post of Section Officer. Since the respondent no.1 was not eligible for promotion to the aforesaid post, he was not considered for such promotion. The respondent no.1 thereupon made a complaint to respondent no.2 – National Commission for Scheduled Castes whereupon. Vide communication dated 12.9.2011, the said Commission required the Commissioner of MCD to attend a discussion in the office of the Chairman of the said Commission on 31.10.2011, along with full facts and all relevant requisite documents pertaining to the case of respondent no.1. Later, the date of hearing/ discussion was postponed to 1.11.2011. The Commissioner of MCD could not appear on 1.11.2011 being busy in some other engagement and Deputy Director (Horticulture) and Administrative Officer (Horticulture) to attend the proceedings before the Commission. According to the petitioner, the officers were made to wait for hours and were allowed to meet the Chairman of the Commission only at 2.30 pm on that date. The Chairman, according to the petitioner, got annoyed and made it clear that summons will be issued for personal appearance of the Commissioner of MCD on 15.11.2011 and if he does not appear on that date, warrants would be issued against him. This was followed by summons dated 3.11.2011 seeking personal appearance of the Commission of MCD. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs: a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ of like nature thereby quashing the impugned inquiry and letter dated 12.9.2011 and summons dated 3.11.2011 issued by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner based upon a frivolous complaint filed by the respondent no.1 w.r.t. his ad hoc promotion to the post of Section Officer in the department of the petitioner. b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ of like nature thereby directing that the complaint filed by the respondent no.1 w.r.t. his ad hoc promotion to the post of Section Officer is not maintainable and the respondent no.2 has no jurisdiction in accordance with Article 338 of the Constitution of India and the said Rules to entertain, investigate the service dispute of the employees of the petitioner.

(2.) THE respondent No.1 is reported to have been served on 28.11.2011 and respondent No.2 is reported to have been served on 25.11.2011. They were proceeded ex parte, vide order dated 18th October, 2012. Since there is no appearance on behalf of respondents and that they have been proceeded ex parte, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner has not placed on record the complaint made by responded No.1 to respondent No.2. The respondents have not come forward to contest the writ petition. In these circumstances, it cannot be known what exactly was the nature of the complaint made by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 and on which issue the Commission is examining the aforesaid complaint.