PARVEEN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UHBVN LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The new found issues raised in this review application were available to the Nigam when judgment was passed after hearing the parties and therefore, new material though available cannot be introduced to change opinion in a case challenging a suspension order. In any case, the criminal court has not held the petitioner guilty of dowry demand as trial is going on. Paragraph 12(c)(iii) of the appointment letter relied upon in review relating to declaration by the candidate pleading that appointee has not taken dowry and will not take dowry is a condition which can be heard to be violated only when the charge is proved and the petitioner held guilty of the charge/s under the provisions of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, but that stage is not reached and the man is innocent till he is proved guilty beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. It is argued by the learned Senior counsel that this Clause 12(c)(iii) is sufficient to justify continuing the suspension order but I am not impressed with this contention or that placing the petitioner's service under suspension is warranted in the circumstances also because the charge sheet has been framed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a complaint made by the wife. The charge framed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is not proof of guilt. It is only a start of the trial which may take some time. If the respondent-Nigam thinks that it would be right Keeping the petitioner under suspension till the end of trial it is sadly mistaken because the petitioner's liberty and livelihood is also involved. Moreover, the petitioner committed no offence or misconduct in office or in discharge of public duties. It is premature to say that the petitioner has made a false declaration as suggested by the learned senior counsel in order to accept offer of appointment, when declaration was made qua Clause 12(c)(iii). The petitioner had a fundamental right against self incrimination. Material brought on review for the first time is not found material in the conclusion reached in the main order.

(2.) The review application is frivolous and misconceived and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-, to be paid to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre annexed to this Court. I also see no justification or sufficient reason in condoning the considerable delay in filing the review application, for which reason as well the accompanying application for condonation of delay is rejected.