RAM KISHEN Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed as a Coolie by the Municipal Committee of Delhi in Jan. 1954 and confirmed as a Mate by an order, dated 12th Oct. 1957. One Shri H. B. Upadhyaya, a Sub-Divisional Clerk in the Office of the Assistant Engineer, had applied for leave to the Deputy Municipal Engineer, who granted him leave for ten days (on 26th Feb. 1959) and directed that the petitioner will work in his place. On 26th Feb. 1959 itself one Shri B. C. Mudgal reported that the petitioner was not prepared to work in the place of Shri Upadhyaya. Shri Upadhyaya was a Receipt & Despatch Clerk of an Assistant Engineer. The petitioner, who is himself alleged to have done clerical work, declined to look after the work of Shri Upadhyaya, making it appear that by being directed to do such work beyond his competence his employment itself was endangered.

(2.) It was also brought to the notice of the officials concerned that despite a general circular, dated 24th April, 1959, that no papers should be handed over to one Shri C. L. Sharma, a suspended Demolishing Inspector, the petitioner was continuing to deliver papers regarding demolition to him. Specific instructions were, therefore, issued (on 24th May 1959) advising the petitioner not to deliver papers to Shri Sharma and also not to accompany him to transact official work but the petitioner continued to maintain the attitude.

(3.) The petitioner was suspended for insubordination by the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 7th May 1959. But even on this order the petitioner wrote that the same should be served on him only through proper channel and that the charge-sheet should be served on him first. In spite of the suspension order he continued to work, styling himself as on duty, marked attendance and accompanied the demolishing gang wherever it went. All the attempts of the Inspector, Overseer-Incharge and the Assistant Engineer failed to keep him off from work. In spite of his being advised on 19th Aug., 1959 to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, he disregarded the same. It is alleged that he went to the extent of instigating the Gang not to do the work unless he was also taken along with them and this resulted in the demolition work itself not being carried on between 2nd Sept. 1959 and 4th Sept. 1959. He was then served with a charge-sheet, dated 15th Feb., 1960. to which was attached a statement of allegations made against the petitioner; but this was also returned with the same remark that it should be served through proper channel.