Vijay Kumar Agarwal v. Mrs. Sujata Saunik
$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 380/2025 VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. J. Rajesh, Amicus Curiae along with petitioner in-person (through VC).
versus MRS. SUJATA SAUNIK .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
O R D E R
% 20.05.2025 1.
Pursuant to the previous order, Mr. J. Rajesh, Advocate, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, to assist the Court in understanding the plea by the petitioner, is present in Court. Though, he fairly states that after his interaction with the petitioner, the petitioner who is a senior citizen, expressed his disinclination for his case to be presented by the Amicus Curiae, at the insistence of the Court, Mr. J. Rajesh, Amicus Curiae has broadly explained the facts and circumstances in the said matter. 2.
The petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 28th March 2012 passed by the Division Bench which related to a chargesheet dated 06th July 1988 issued to the petitioner. 3.
The issue canvassed by the petitioner was that whether it was permissible in law that the inquiry be continued pursuant to the chargesheet, keeping in view the fact that pertaining to another inquiry, a penalty The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
of dismissal from service was inflicted upon the petitioner, in the year 1998. 4.
Petitioner has urged that neither an inquiry could be continued nor a penalty could be imposed.
5.
In this context, the Division Bench passed the following orders: 6.
The petitioner, who is present in-person, through VC, seeks to draw attention of the Court to decision in Delhi Jal Board v. Mahinder Singh, (2000) 7 SCC 210, where there was an issue relating to the opening of the sealed cover prepared by the DPC notwithstanding the pendency of later disciplinary case.
7.
The Court has considered the submissions which have been made in The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
this regard and in the opinion of this Court, the contempt petition cannot subsist on a plea of this nature, as canvassed by the petitioner and certainly not in the context of the Division Bench's order dated 28th March 2012, aside from the fact that this kind of a plea is extremely delayed and barred by limitation.
8.
Counsel for State of Maharashtra appears on advance notice and states that an application has been filed by the petitioner before the Division Bench seeking positive directions, which is now listed on 08th July 2025. 9.
Liberty has already been exercised by the petitioner to canvass his grievances in accordance with law.
10.
The contempt petition cannot subsist.
11.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
12.
A note of appreciation for the efforts made by Mr. J. Rajesh, Amicus for assisting the Court in the matter.
13.
Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J MAY 20, 2025/MK/kp The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.