Ratan Singh vs Government Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant retired from the service of the Government of NCT of Delhi, as Vice Principal, on 31.01.2018. Through order dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure A-4), i.e., 15 days before the actual date of his retirement, he was re-employed w.e.f. 01.02.2018, and was posted as Principal of Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Gokulpuri. The audit conducted in that school pointed out certain financial irregularities. A memorandum was issued to the applicant on 11.05.2018 (Annexure A-6) requiring him to explain as to why action be not taken against him. It was stated that due to his negligence in discharge of duties, financial irregularities have taken place, and that he failed to provide attendance records for the period between 01.09.2017 and 28.02.2018. The applicant submitted his detailed explanation to the same on 19.05.2018 (Annexure A-9). On consideration of that explanation, the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 18.06.2018 (Annexure A-1) directing termination of the re-employment of the applicant. Hence, this OA.

Heard Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant.

The applicant has been re-employed as Principal soon after his retirement. Such an arrangement is purely discretionary and is not governed by any provisions of law. The audit of the school accounts revealed some financial irregularities, and explanation was sought from the applicant. In his explanation, the applicant made almost counter-allegations, and sought action against others. The 3rd respondent took the explanation into account, and passed the impugned order.

Several contentions, ranging from the one as to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the 3rd respondent to issue the impugned order, to the violation of due process, have been urged. We find it difficult to accept or appreciate the same. The reason is that re-employment of the applicant is not governed by any rules, nor does he have a right to be re-employed. Everything in this regard is discretionary, and much would depend upon subjective satisfaction of the employers. Similarly, the question as to whether the 3rd respondent was competent to pass order, cannot be examined. It is only in respect of a civil servant, that the phenomenon, such as appointing authority, disciplinary authority, etc., come into play. It may be a matter of convenience within the administration, that the order of termination was passed. The same cannot be scrutinized on the touchstone of the principles that apply to regular appointments.

Another contention advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the order attaches stigma to the applicant. In the show cause notice, the only allegation made against him was that he failed to be vigilant. The observation made in the order of termination was in the light of the counter-allegations made by the applicant. We do not find any basis to interfere with the impugned order.

The OA is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.