In the case of Suman Dagar v. MCD Employee, the Delhi High Court addressed the violation of election guidelines by the employee during campaigning for the MCD Elections 2022. Suman Dagar, contesting from Ward No.26 in Najafgarh, New Delhi, raised concerns about the employee’s actions while campaigning for his wife, who is also a candidate in the same ward. Learn more about the court’s decision and the repercussions of violating election rules in this important legal case.
Facts
- The Court took note of the petitioner’s grievance regarding the husband of a candidate campaigning for his wife in the MCD elections of 2022.
- The representation of the petitioner was considered by the Court.
- The case is scheduled for disposal in November, 2022.
- The concerned person, an employee of MCD, was bound by the Guidelines for the conduct of Government Servants dated 6 November, 1984 issued by the Election Commission of India.
- The concerned person was prohibited from taking part in campaigning as per the guidelines.
- Directions were passed in November, 2022 regarding the same.
Arguments
- The petitioner, Suman Dagar, filed a case against the respondent no. 4, who is an employee of MCD and husband of respondent no. 5.
- The petitioner alleged that respondent no. 4 violated the Guidelines for the conduct of Government Servants issued by the Election Commission of India by openly campaigning for his wife, respondent no. 5, during the MCD Elections 2022.
- A warning letter was issued to respondent no. 4 on 20 March, 2023, citing the violation of election rules and guidelines.
- A show cause notice was served to respondent no. 4 on 25.11.2022, giving him 2 days to respond as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for campaigning in the MCD election.
- Respondent no. 4 claimed that he is not a government employee but working on a contractual basis in the concerned department. However, the petitioner asserted that as an employee of MCD, respondent no. 4 is bound by the Election Commission’s guidelines.
- The petitioner, contesting from Ward No.26 in Najafgarh, New Delhi, was aggrieved by the campaigning activities of respondent no. 4 for respondent no. 5, who is also contesting from the same ward.
- Petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 19.11.2022.
- The representation was not actioned upon by the respondents.
- Counsels for the respondents assured that the representation will be reviewed and addressed within a reasonable timeframe.
Analysis
- The case involves a warning issued to Shri Gopal Dagar, a Junior Engineer in MCD, for campaigning in the MCD election of 2022 for his wife.
- The warning was issued after considering his reply and granting him an opportunity of hearing.
- The warning letter dated 20 March, 2023, was issued to Shri Gopal Dagar as a consequence.
- The complaint of the petitioner has been duly acted upon by the respondents.
- The petitioner cannot question the quantum of punishment imposed on the official.
- The court will not review the validity of the action taken by the respondents, as compliance with court directions has been achieved.
- Shri Gopal Dagar is warned to avoid engaging in political activities that may lead to disciplinary action as per service rules or contract agreement.
- The warning emphasizes the need for satisfactory work and conduct for any future extension of contractual employment in MCD as a Junior Engineer.
- In K.G. Derasari v. Union of India (2001) 10 SCC 496 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 756, the court held that if an opinion is wrong or against the rules, or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, one should approach the court.
- In Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela (2006) 2 SCC 482, the Supreme Court ruled that the term ‘Government Servant’ does not include persons employed on a contract basis.
- In State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh & Ors. JT 2005 (12) 475, the Supreme Court stated that contractual employees do not enjoy all the benefits of a permanent government servant and are not bound by all the conditions.
- In a contempt application, the court cannot give new directions or delete existing ones
- The court cannot review its own decision while dealing with a contempt application
- The focus should be on whether contempt has occurred or not, rather than revisiting the underlying issues
Decision
- Further orders are not required in the present petition.
- It would be impermissible and indefensible to issue further orders.
- The present petition is disposed of.
Case Title: SUMAN DAGAR Vs. MR.VIJAY DEV AND ORS (2024:DHC:3755)
Case Number: CONT.CAS(C)-345/2023
