Full Judgment Text
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order : February 21, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 1637/2018 & CM Nos.6715-18/2018
T. D. SURESH BABU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Bharat Sangal, Ms.Vidushi Garg,
Ms.Anindita and Ms.Isha Gupta, Advocates
versus
M/S MMTC LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Akhil Sachar, Advocate and Ms.Smita,
Legal Manager
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
O R D E R
(ORAL)
1. Against imposition of minor penalty of withholding of one increment
with cumulative effect in terms of Rule 23(b) of MMTC Employees
Disciplinary and Conduct Rules, 1975, petitioner had preferred a statutory
appeal ( Annexure P-30 ) wherein it has been specifically asserted by
petitioner that it was not his duty to supervise the securing movement of
high value cargo by weighment and it was the job of the officers posted at
Haldia and many officers working with petitioner were similarly accused but
they have been exonerated by accepting the stand of MMTC that the
working of supervisory and the staff function is decentralized. Appellate
nd
Authority vide order of 2 January, 2018 ( Annexure P-1 ) has rejected
petitioner’s appeal ( Annexure P-30 ) without adverting to the afore-referred
stand taken by petitioner in the appeal. Attention of this Court has been
drawn to the MMTC Ltd. Employees’ Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules,
W.P.(C) No.1637/2018 Page 1
1975 ( Annexure P-3 ) to point out that remedy of review is available to
petitioner as per Rule 34 thereof.
2. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to
dispose of this petition with permission to petitioner to seek review of the
nd
Appellate Order of 2 January, 2018 ( Annexure P-1 ) within a period of two
weeks. If any such review petition is filed by petitioner, then it be duly
considered by a speaking order in terms of Rule 34 of MMTC Ltd.
Employees’ Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 within a period of
six weeks and the fate of the review be made known to petitioner within a
week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedy as available in
law, if need be.
3. With aforesaid directions, this petition and applications are disposed
of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 21, 2018
mamta
W.P.(C) No.1637/2018 Page 2