Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) + W.P.fC)9467/2015& CM APPLNs.22236-37/2015
KAMAL JIT SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr.RajKumar Sehrawat, Advocate
(i) + W.P.fC)9467/2015& CM APPLNs.22236-37/2015
KAMAL JIT SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr.RajKumar Sehrawat, Advocate
VERSUS
GURU TEGH BAHADUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ORS Respondents
Through: Dr. Sarabjit Sharma,Advocate for respondentNo.1
Mr.Jasmeet Singh,Advocate for respondent No.2
(ii) + W.P.tCJ 9482/2015&CM APPLNs.22256-57/2015
SURJEET SINGH SAINI Petitioner
Through: Mr.RajKumar Sehrawat, Advocate
Through: Dr. Sarabjit Sharma,Advocate for respondentNo.1
Mr.Jasmeet Singh,Advocate for respondent No.2
(ii) + W.P.tCJ 9482/2015&CM APPLNs.22256-57/2015
SURJEET SINGH SAINI Petitioner
Through: Mr.RajKumar Sehrawat, Advocate
VERSUS
GURU TEGH BAHDURINSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & Respondents
Through: Dr.Sarabjit Sharma,Advocate for respondentNo.1
Mr.Jasmeet Singh,Advocate for respondent No.2
Through: Dr.Sarabjit Sharma,Advocate for respondentNo.1
Mr.Jasmeet Singh,Advocate for respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER o/„ 06.10.2015
In the above captioned first petition,petitionQr-KamaljitSingh is a
Teaching Assistant whereas in the second petition, petitionev-Surjeet
W.P.(C)9467&9482of2015 1 2015:DHC:11445 Singh Saini is Lab Assistant with first respondent. Memorandum of9^'
September,2015(Annexure P-1)has been served upon petitioners while invoking the relevantregulations ofrespondentNo.2-Committee.
Since the challenge to the impugned Memorandum is on identical grounds, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties both these petitions were heard together and by this common order,they are being disposed of.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners had been exercising their rights for seeking redressal from various authorities and for this, petitioners cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings as doing so,would be totally unjustified.
Learned counsel for respondent No.l submits that petitioners have not given response to the Memorandum(AnnexureP-1).
In the facts and circumstances ofthis case,it is deemed appropriate to dispose of these petitions with directions to petitioner to file the response to the Memorandum (Annexure P-1) within a period of four weeks from today and first respondent shall take into consideration the response so filed by petitioners and thereafter, to decide as to whether disciplinary proceedings oughtto be initiated againstpetitioners or not.
Let it be so done by passing a speaking order within a period of twelve weeks. In case first respondent chooses to initiate disciplinary proceedings against petitioners,then the said intention be made known to petitioners within a week after the decision is taken by first respondent.
Needless to say, if first respondent chooses to initiate disciplinary proceedings against petitioners,then petitioners will have the remedies as available in law.
W.P.(C)9467&9482of2015 Page 2 '--J Letthis order be complied with before initiation ofany disciplinary proceedings against petitioners.
With aforesaid directions, the above captioned two petitions and the applications are disposed of.
OCTOBER 06,2015 s (SUI^GAUR)
JUDGE
W.P.(C)9467&9482of2015 3
ORDER o/„ 06.10.2015
In the above captioned first petition,petitionQr-KamaljitSingh is a
Teaching Assistant whereas in the second petition, petitionev-Surjeet
W.P.(C)9467&9482of2015 1 2015:DHC:11445 Singh Saini is Lab Assistant with first respondent. Memorandum of9^'
September,2015(Annexure P-1)has been served upon petitioners while invoking the relevantregulations ofrespondentNo.2-Committee.
Since the challenge to the impugned Memorandum is on identical grounds, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties both these petitions were heard together and by this common order,they are being disposed of.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners had been exercising their rights for seeking redressal from various authorities and for this, petitioners cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings as doing so,would be totally unjustified.
Learned counsel for respondent No.l submits that petitioners have not given response to the Memorandum(AnnexureP-1).
In the facts and circumstances ofthis case,it is deemed appropriate to dispose of these petitions with directions to petitioner to file the response to the Memorandum (Annexure P-1) within a period of four weeks from today and first respondent shall take into consideration the response so filed by petitioners and thereafter, to decide as to whether disciplinary proceedings oughtto be initiated againstpetitioners or not.
Let it be so done by passing a speaking order within a period of twelve weeks. In case first respondent chooses to initiate disciplinary proceedings against petitioners,then the said intention be made known to petitioners within a week after the decision is taken by first respondent.
Needless to say, if first respondent chooses to initiate disciplinary proceedings against petitioners,then petitioners will have the remedies as available in law.
W.P.(C)9467&9482of2015 Page 2 '--J Letthis order be complied with before initiation ofany disciplinary proceedings against petitioners.
With aforesaid directions, the above captioned two petitions and the applications are disposed of.
OCTOBER 06,2015 s (SUI^GAUR)
JUDGE
W.P.(C)9467&9482of2015 3
JUDGMENT