The Delhi High court has recently dismissed a petition moved by a former Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Speaker of the Delhi Legislative Assembly (LA) challenging his dismissal by the Lieutenant Governor (LG) in 2013. The High court said the service was rightly terminated by the LG being the competent authority.
The petitioner was absorbed into the Delhi Legislative Assembly (DLA) secretariat after the expiry of deputation services in the Legislative Assembly (LA).
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in the judgement said, " it is evident that the appointment of the petitioner is in the teeth of the law and cannot be saved. Still for the sake of argument, even if the termination order is tested on the anvil of violation of the principles of natural justice, there are documents on record to establish that the petitioner was granted ample opportunities by way of replying to the show cause notice as well by way of personal hearings granted to him, which he chose to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to. Therefore, the petitioner's termination cannot be termed illegal.
"The entire saga of the series of appointments, absorption and promotion of the petitioner is tainted with irregularities and illegalities, de-hors the rules or due process of law, without approval by the competent authority and is vitiated," Justice Singh observed.
"In view of the irregularities and illegalities therein, show cause notices were invoked against him as ordered by the Lt. Governor being the appropriate appointing authority and even the opportunity of being heard was granted to the petitioner...even after having received the show cause notices about his misconduct, the petitioner neither disputed nor gave any explanation to defend himself. Hence, the service of the petitioner was rightly terminated by the competent authority, the Lt. Governor," the court said.
Dismissing the petition moved by Siddharth Rao, the court said that it is a settled position of law that when an appointment is not an appointment in the eye of the law, the appointee cannot claim the right to the post and also cannot claim the constitutional guarantee provided under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, if the very appointment to the post is vitiated by fraud, forgery or illegality, it would necessarily follow that no constitutional rights under Article 311 can possibly be invoked, the bench observed in the judgment of December 23.
Siddharth Rao had challenged and sought a direction for quashing the order of June 6, 2013, passed by the LG, terminating him from his service and holding all his appointments in Delhi Legislative Assembly illegal and also an earlier order relieving him from the post of Secretary, Delhi Legislative Assembly.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor