Delhi HC issues notice to NDMC for ignoring stay order in employee termination case
Oct 14, 2024
New Delhi [India], October 14 : The Delhi High Court has issued a notice of contempt against the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) following the termination of an employee's services as a Palika Sahayak, despite a stay order from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
According to the plea, the petitioner was initially issued a memo on December 21, 2023, alleging misconduct, leading to a termination notice on June 14, 2024.
After seeking a stay from the CAT, which was granted on July 12, 2024, the NDMC allegedly attempted to bypass this order by withdrawing the initial notice on August 7, 2024, and subsequently terminating the petitioner's services on August 9, 2024.
It further stated that the petitioner filed contempt proceedings against the NDMC, but the CAT closed these proceedings without action. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court, represented by Counsel Ankit Singh Sinsinwar.
In an order passed on October 8, 2024, the High Court expressed concern over the NDMC's actions, deeming them potentially orchestrated, and issued a notice regarding the petition.
The bench of Justices C. Harishankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain also expressed concern over the Tribunal's narrow perspective on the respondents' actions. The bench emphasised that the respondents' behaviour was clear and significant. The order dated June 14, 2024, effectively terminated the petitioner's services after one month.
The petitioner challenged this order, and the Tribunal stayed its operation on July 12, 2024, which meant that the termination could not be enforced while the stay was in effect.
The court further noted that the respondents seemed to attempt to circumvent the Tribunal's previous order by withdrawing the order dated August 7, 2024, and quickly issuing a new order on August 9, 2024, claiming the first was stigmatic. While the Tribunal held that the petitioner must challenge this new order, the bench expressed serious doubts about the respondents' good faith and the legitimacy of both orders.
The timing of the new order suggested a coordinated effort to undermine the Tribunal's authority and compel the petitioner into further litigation, said the court.
