Dr. Mithlesh Verma vs Chief Secretary, Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant is serving in the Education Department of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCT). Through an order dated 28.03.2013, the Directorate of Education posted the applicant as Education Officer. However, shortly thereafter, i.e., 17.04.2013, the order of posting was withdrawn, and she was reverted to the post of Deputy Education Officer (DEO) immediately.

The said order is challenged in this OA.

The applicant contends that she has been promoted to the post of Education Officer on the basis of her seniority, and on consideration of her record, and there was absolutely no basis to revert her, that too, without issuing any notice.

The respondents filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that though the applicant was promoted to the post of Education Officer along-with some other officers, it was noticed that a vigilance case is pending against her in relation to her caste certificate, and that in view of the same, the impugned order had to be passed.

We heard Shri Malaya Chand, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri N. K. Singh for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondents.

It is no doubt true that the applicant has been promoted as Education Officer. However, it is not in dispute that there existed some vigilance inquiry against her, at the relevant point of time. The applicant entered service by claiming the status of Scheduled Tribe. Later on, it came to the notice of the department that the caste certificate produced by her was not genuine. The CBI conducted an inquiry and on the basis of the complaint by it, CC No.9/16 was taken up by the Court of Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-0I, Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi. Record also discloses that when the charges were framed in that case, the applicant moved the High Court of Delhi by filing CRL.M.C.2956/2011.

The husband of the applicant, by name, Tarsem Lal Verma, was also being proceeded in similar manner. The applicant filed CRL. M.C.2956/2011 and her husband filed CRL.M.C.2957/2011 in the High Court challenging the charges framed against them. Through a detailed common order dated 03.07.2012, the High Court dismissed both the petitions. The husband of the applicant filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)...2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme court, and vide order dated 10.05.2013, the common order of the High Court dated 03.07.2012 was stayed. Obviously, because this fact was not brought to the notice of the Trial Court, CBI, CC No.9/2016 has been decided on merits, and it was held that the very filing of FIR is untenable in law on account of the fact that the Caste Scrutiny Committee did not record any finding. It is not known as to whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee has since taken up the matter.

Be that as it may, the appointing authority now needs to take note of various developments that have taken place during the pendency of this OA, and pass fresh orders. In case the inquiry into the social status of the applicant is still pending, the same needs to be taken into account. The OA is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.