SATISH CHAND GUPTA Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 19.08.2009 in T.A. No.97/2009. They were aggrieved by the action of the respondent (MCD) in withdrawing their regularization orders.

(2.) THE petitioners' case before the CAT was that they were originally working as daily wage employees at various places for the MCD when, on different dates between 2002 and 2003, orders of regularization were issued in respect of their employment. While so, alleging that there were large scale irregularities and scams - involving forgery and collusion with the officials of MCD, the petitioners' services were terminated as in the case of others too. Consequently, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing writ petitions. They were disposed of by common judgment dated 09.07.2007 (W.P.(C) 8379 -99/2006, being Satish Chand Gupta and Ors. v. MCD and Ors) . In short, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the MCD - which had invoked proviso (b) to Section 95(2) of the DMC Act, could not establish that it was not reasonably practicable to give the employees an opportunity of showing cause against the punishment. The MCD approached the Division Bench in appeal, being LPA 1176/2007 and LPA 1184/2007. These were disposed of on 09.10.2007. The Division Bench in the operative portion directed as follows:

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that once the learned Single Judge decided that the invocation of the "no enquiry" clause - embodied in Section 95(2) (b) of the DMC Act was unlawful, and the decision was not set aside by the Division Bench, the only lawful method of passing any adverse orders upon the petitioners was after a regular departmental enquiry. Instead, the MCD flouted the Court's order by virtually invoking the same provision and dispensing with the regular enquiry and, instead, opting for a short -cut method unknown to law. Learned counsel argued that the proceedings held by the MCD nowhere disclose that the steps mandated by the Regulation 8, i.e. furnishing of charge sheet with allegations; providing list of documents, and; also full opportunity to each employee to lead evidence was not followed. In these circumstances, the impugned withdrawal of regularization orders cannot be sustained and the CAT fell into error in holding otherwise.