DULARI DEVI AND ORS. Vs. M.C.D.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19.12.2008. The appellants (original petitioners in the writ petition) claim that they were appointed as daily wagers in the Leprosy Home of the MCD at Tahirpur, Shahdara, Delhi. However, none of the appellants mentioned from which date they were so appointed. Their case is that on 6th February / 8th March, 2004, a letter/order was given to the appellants by the Administrative Officer (Health) whereby each one of them was asked to join duties with the Medical Officer In -charge (MOIC) at the Leprosy Home, Tahirpur, Shahdara. The grievance of the appellants is that while they were continuing to discharge their duties at the Leprosy Home, they were suddenly asked by the respondent MCD (original respondent in the writ petition) by identical worded letters dated 19th September, 2006 to produce any document on record as proof of their employment in MCD prior to their posting at the Leprosy Home. The appellants did not produce any document to show that prior to their posting at the Leprosy Home, they were employed in the MCD. They were accordingly not permitted to resume duties thereafter. Accordingly they were constrained to file the writ petition. There is no explanation as to why it took the appellants more than one year to file the writ petition. No document was filed by the appellants with the writ petition to indicate that any of the appellants was appointed in the MCD prior to being posted in the Leprosy Home. The case of the MCD before the learned single Judge was that none of the appellants was in fact ever appointed to the MCD and it appears that orders transferring them to Leprosy Home were issued without there being any appointment letter to begin with. As per the MCD, these facts came to light on or about 1st May, 2006 when it was realized that several persons had managed to get employed in MCD as daily wagers on the basis of fake documents and bogus transfer orders. The MCD accordingly issued notices asking the daily wagers to produce details of their previous employment. When no such information was forthcoming, by separate orders dated 19.9.2006, each of the appellants was relieved from service. The MCD submitted before the learned single Judge that none of the appellants had been able to show that they were ever employed in the MCD prior to their posting at the Leprosy Home. What they have produced is only the order either transferring them or posting them in the Leprosy Home. In fact each of these orders presupposes that they were already employed in the MCD when in fact they were not. As per the counsel for the MCD, the records do not show that any of these appellants was in fact employed with the MCD and in view of this, there was no question of having to comply with Section 95(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 read with the Regulations. Despite seeking repeated opportunities from the court, the appellants were unable to produce any document to show that they were employed with the MCD prior to their being posted at the Leprosy Home. The learned single Judge thus rightly held that since the factual basis itself had not been substantiated by the appellants, they cannot be granted any relief as prayed for and the question of applying the procedure under Section 95(2) of the DMC Act before removing them from service cannot arise. In any event, each one of them was given a separate show cause notice in reply to which they were unable to show that they were ever appointed to the MCD. The learned single Judge thus correctly came to the conclusion that none of the appellants was employed in the MCD prior to their posting at the Leprosy Home and that they appeared to have managed to obtain orders posting them at the Leprosy Home on the basis that they were already employed in the MCD when in fact they were not. The MCD was, therefore, fully justified in not permitting the appellants to continue in service at the Leprosy Home beyond 19.9.2006. In fact in the show cause notice issued to the appellant No. 1 dated 27.3.2008 (Pg.72 of the paper book), it is clearly stated that investigations by the MCD revealed that not only had the appellant joined the said office illegally on the basis of forged / fake posting order, but also worked there as daily wager / on regular basis thereby committing fraud during the relevant period and as such, her engagement as daily wager / on regular basis was not only void but also illegal apart from being irregular having been made without authority of law or by the competent authority. The appellants could not give any plausible explanation to the show cause notice issued to them.

(2.) WE find no infirmity in the said findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned single Judge to warrant any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. All applications stand disposed of as well.