PRAMOD VASHISHT vs NORTH DELHIMUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Judgment text excerpt

$~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 17.09.2025 + W.P.(C) 8211/2021 PRAMOD VASHISHT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shivanshu Bhardwaj (appeared through V/C) and Mr. Archit Mudgal, Advs. versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC, Mr. Parvin Bansal, Adv. for MCD with Devesh Kumar Jha, Section Officer, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, ASO, Mr. Arun Kumar, SSA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 15.06.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟) in O.A. No. 1649/2020, titled Parmod Vashisht v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. 2. The limited facts relevant for the purposes for the present petition are that the petitioner had filed the above O.A challenging the Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 8211/2021 Page 1 of 8 NEGI Signing Date:22.09.2025 19:32:55 Order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the respondent-Corporation, retiring the petitioner from service by invoking the power under FR 56(j) and Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The review against the same was also dismissed vide Order dated 17.02.2020. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the above OA. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Screening Committee failed to appreciate and take into account the entire service record of the petitioner while passing the Impugned Order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. 4. He submits that though penalty had been imposed on the petitioner, the last of such penalty was vide office order dated 11.06.2007, of st