Govt Of NCT Of Delhi And ORS v. Smt Supritee Kulshreshtha

$~47 & 48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9216/2024 & CM APPL. 37754/2024 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Petitioners Through:

Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

versus SH RAJESH KUMAR BALARA .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Suresh Sharma, Adv.

+ W.P.(C) 10730/2024 & CM APPL. 44161/2024 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Petitioners Through:

Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

versus SMT SUPRITEE KULSHRESHTHA .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Suresh Sharma, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 23.12.2024 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1.

The respondents in these writ petitions were working as Trained

Graduate Teachers1 under the Directorate of Education2. They were served with charge sheets under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, proposing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them. The charge sheet was issued by the Deputy Director of Education3. An enquiry was conducted, which culminated in the DDE imposing, on the respondents, the punishment of reduction of pay by three stages till retirement. Statutory appeals, preferred against the said decision under Rule 23 of the CCS(CCA) Rules were rejected by the Secretary (Education), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi4, as the appellate authority. The secretary reduced the punishment to reduction in pay by one stage till retirement.

2.

Similar action was taken against Udal Singh, another TGT, working under the DOE.

3.

The respondents, along with Udal Singh, instituted Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi5, challenging the authority of the DDE to act as Disciplinary Authority6. 4.

The Tribunal, by a common judgment dated 1 December 2023, allowed all the Original Applications, holding the DDE to have been incompetent to act as the DA.

1 "TGT" hereinafter 2 "DOE" hereinafter 3 "DDE" hereinafter 4 "GNCTD" hereinafter 5 "Tribunal" hereinafter 6 "DA" hereinafter

5.

The GNCTD has approached this Court against the said decision.

6.

WP (C) 15643/20247, which assailed the impugned judgment dated 1 December 2023, qua Udal Singh, already stands dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 14 November 20248. 7.

We have heard Mr. N.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He is unable to distinguish the present writ petitions from Udal Singh.

8.

Inasmuch as (i) the situation of the respondents in the present petition is identical to that of Udal Singh, (ii) the judgment rendered by the Tribunal was common and (iii) the writ petition filed by the GNCTD against the said judgment, qua Udal Singh, stands dismissed, these writ petitions must suffer a similar fate. 9.

Accordingly, following the judgment in Udal Singh, these writ petitions are also dismissed with no order as to costs. C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

DECEMBER 23, 2024/ar Click here to check corrigendum, if any 7 GNCTD v Udal Singh 8 2024 SCC Online Del 7987