Hafiz Mohd. Khalid vs Delhi Wakf Board

Anil Kumar, J.—The petitioner challenges the order dated 1st June, 2009 in OA No. 476 of 2009 titled Hafiz Mohd, Khalid v. Delhi Wakf Board passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby petitioner''s petition challenging his suspension order dated 12th August, 2004 and his plea for reinstatement as an Imam in Madina Masjid under Delhi Wakf Board were declined.

The petitioner contended that he was appointed as an Imam of Medina Mosque on honorary basis with the condition that the petitioner as an Imam of a Masjid under Delhi Wakf Board could be terminated or transferred at any time from the post of Imam.

A complaint was filed by one Mst. Shahida Khatoon against the petitioner, who was working at his residence that she was raped by the petitioner. Consequently an FIR No. 448 of 2004 u/s 376 of Indian Penal Code was registered and a criminal prosecution under Session Case No. 136 of 2004 was initiated against the petitioner. On account of the criminal case against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension from the post of Imam on 12th August, 2004.

The Sessions Court, however, found that Mst. Shahida Khatoon, prosecutrix, to be a consenting party and consequently the petitioner was acquitted of the charge of raping her by being given benefit of doubt. While acquitting the petitioner on the charges of rape, the Sessions Court had held the conduct of the petitioner was deplorable on account of having illicit relations with the prosecutrix being an Imam of the Mosque.

After the petitioner had been acquitted on account of being given benefit of doubt, he applied for reinstatement. However, the Wakf Board after considering the facts and circumstances, declined to reinstate the petitioner holding that since element of moral turpitude was involved, the petitioner was not entitled to hold the honorary post of an Imam.

Acquittal of the petitioner on account of benefit of doubt given to him has also not become final as the prosecutrix has filed a revision petition being Criminal Revision No. 521 of 2006 against the acquittal of the petitioner on account of benefit of doubt, which was admitted and is pending adjudication in the High Court.

The Tribunal has declined the plea of the petitioner for reinstatement on the ground that the petitioner was appointed by Muttawali on honorary basis to lead the prayers in Medina Mosque five times a day and in such circumstances, the appointment of the petitioner under the Wakf Board was on an honorary basis. It was also noticed by the Tribunal that appointment as an Imam does not carry the incidence of an appointment by the Wakf Board though the Imams are entitled for emoluments, as held in All India Imam Organization and others Vs. Union of India and others,

The Tribunal had also permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent for emoluments and in the circumstances the petitioner was found not entitled for any further relief regarding payments of emoluments during the period he worked, as the respondent had not challenged the order dated 1st June, 2009.

Regarding reinstatement, the Tribunal had held that the charge of rape against the petitioner has not become final as even though the Session Court had acquitted the petitioner, however, the revision petition by the prosecutrix against the petitioner is still pending adjudication.

In any case, the petitioner was working on honorary basis to offer prayers as an Imam in a mosque. The petitioner has not denied that he had consensual sex with Mst. Shaheed Khatoon, the prosecutrix. Consequently the respondent is entitled not to reinstate him as an Imam to offer prayers in the mosque on account of moral turpitude which stands admitted in the facts and circumstances. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted with, on any of the grounds raised by the petitioner.

The writ petition in the facts and circumstances is without any legal basis and petitioner is not entitled for any interference by this Court against the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.