VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2011 › High Court of Delhi

Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Ajay Sehgal and Ors

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
19 September 2011
Bench
Sanjiv Khannaauthor
Case no.
W.P.(C) 214/2011

Judgment

SANJIV KHANNA, J. kapil

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 30th August, 2011 Date of decision : 19th September, 2011 + W.P.(C) 214/2011 Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research & Ors. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chadhiok, ASG with Mr.Sandeep Bajaj & Ms.Riya Kaul, Advs. MrNeeraj Chaudhari, CGSC with Mr.Akshay Chandra, Mr.Mohit Auluck & Mr.Khalid Arshad, Advs. for Pet. 2 to 4 versus Mr.Ajay Sehgal & Ors. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Manish Srivastava, Adv. for Resp.1 Mr.Anil Mittal, Adv. for Resp.2 Dr.Saif Mahmood, Adv. for Resp. 3 WITH 2. W.P.(C) 6324/2011 State of Uttar Pradesh ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Anil Mittal, Adv. versus Mr.Ajay Sehgal & Ors. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Asit Tiwari, Adv. for Resps. 2 & 3 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ These two writ petitions have been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 7th January, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short "the tribunal") in OA No. 3590/2010 whereby the tribunal has lanceted the order of repatriation passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh repatriating the incumbent, namely, Mr.Ajay Sehgal, from the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER) to his parent cadre. 2. The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 214/2011 has been filed by PGIMER whereas Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6324/2011 has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. 3. The facts which are essential to be exposited are that the respondent No.1, an officer belonging to Indian Forest Service from Uttar Pradesh cadre, was selected on deputation basis by the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, for assigning the post of Director. He joined the deputation post on 3rd September, 2007. On 19th November, 2007, he was served with a memo pertaining to the period 2004 while he was posted as Divisional Forest Officer at Saharanpur, U.P. The charges leveled against him show that while he was holding the said post, he received information with regard to felling of huge quantity of Khair trees in Badkhala Range in Maganpura beat of his division, but he did not carry on the inspection/checking and did not take appropriate steps as per the rules. As further alleged, he had saved the concerned officers/employees by concealing the information with regard to the illegal felling from his seniors. The respondent No.1 put forth before the tribunal that after the preliminary enquiry he was exonerated. But despite the same, a regular departmental enquiry was initiated, which he was attending as and when required. As the factual narration would reveal, at the time of deputation, all mandatory clearances were given and there was neither any proposal pending nor contemplated by the State Government to chargesheet him while relieving him for central deputation. 4. It was set forth before the tribunal that as per the Central Staffing Scheme, the period of deputation is five years. Clauses 17.11 and 17.12 provide for pre-mature reversion of the officers concerned to their respective cadres. While working on the post of deputation, he was selected for being appointed as Deputy Director (Administration) at the PGIMER, Chandigarh on deputation for a period of four years. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, vide office memorandum dated 11th August, 2009, requested the DOP&T to relieve him to facilitate his joining at the PGIMER, Chandigarh. He joined the said post with the concurrence and approval of the borrowing ministry, that is, Ministry of Personnel, and, therefore, the terms and conditions of the deputation were to be governed by the Central Staffing Scheme. He joined at PGIMER on 1st September, 2009. A

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.