R.D. Sharma vs Delhi Development Authority
1996 Latest Caselaw 910 Del

JUDGMENT

K.S. Gupta, J.

(1) In the amended writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution R.D.Sharma, petitioner, has alleged that he is employed in Delhi Development Authority, respondent No.1 and is working as Assistant Director. Respondent No.2 is the Finance Member of respondent No.2 and is the appointing authority of the petitioner. To accommodate the inflow of refugees, who came to this country in the wake of partition, Govt. of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation initiated various resettlement schemes and one such scheme was the Kingsway Delhi Development Scheme. Under this Scheme tenements/quarters were allotted to the refugees on leasehold basis and the lease was transferable. However, the allotted quarters were declared dangerous for habitation by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and as such to facilitate the development of the quarters Government of India handed them over to the MCD. Mcd on its part demolished the existing structures and after developing the area carved out plots of land and re-allotted the plots to the refugees against their quarters, they were already holding. Re- allotment was done by the Mcd sometime in the year 1978. Sometime in the year 1982-1983 the Development Scheme was transferred by Govt. of India from the Mcd to respondent No.1. It is further alleged that quarter bearing No.G-59, Hudson Lane, Delhi, had been leased out to one Khan Chand Taneja and as the leasehold rights were transferable he sold that quarter to one Mela Ram. After the demolition of the quarters on the recommendation of the Mcd in the area of Hudson Lane, Mcd re-allotted a plot of land bearing No.1177, Dr.Mukerjee Nagar, in lieu of above quarter No.G-59, Hudson Lane to said Mela Ram. However, Mela Ram being desirous of changing the plot of land re-allotted to him, applied for a change and the Mcd in lieu of plot No.1177 allotted him another plot of land bearing No.64A in Dr.Mukerjee Nagar. Later on, possession of plot No.64A was also handed over to Mela Ram by the Mcd after completion of necessary formalities. However, it appears that while Mcd allowed the change of allotment to Mela Ram, the previous plot of land bearing No.1177, instead of being suitably re-adjusted, continued to remain in the name of Mela Ram in the record of the MCD. All the allotments were made by the Mcd prior to the transfer of the Scheme to respondent No.1. It is stated that because of some mischief, of which the petitioner did not have any knowledge, possession of plot No.1177, Dr.Mukerjee Nagar, was also handed over to some person in the name of Mela Ram after completing all the formalities by the then Joint Director(OSB). At that time petitioner was serving at the post of Lease Administrative Officer and was neither concerned with the allotment of plots of land, nor was he responsible for handing over possession thereof. In the month of January/February 1992 Mela Ram approached respondent No.1 seeking the execution of lease-deed of the plot bearing No.64A, Dr.Mukerjee Nagar. Petitioner called for the file in regard to that plot and was shocked to notice that the original documents were missing therefrom. He immediately issued a circular for search of those documents and in the meantime put in abeyant the execution of lease-deed. In the month of June 1992 the petitioner was approached by one Mela Ram seeking the execution of lease-deed in respect of said plot No.1177. Finding the file regarding this plot complete in all respects, the petitioner, acting on behalf of the President of India, executed lease-deed in favour of one Mela Ram, who now appears, was an imposter. It is pleaded that on discovering the fraud played. Central Bureau of Investigation initiated investigation and lodged an Fir with the concerned police station. Cbi arrested Jaivir Singh Rana, Sumer Singh, R.S.Rawat and others. On February 3, 1995, petitioner's house was also raided by the Cbi but nothing incriminating was found therefrom. Thereafter on February 7, 1995 petitioner was arrested by the Cbi and he was remanded to judicial custody. On February 14, 1995 the petitioner was admitted to bail by the Special Judge, Delhi. On his release on bail petitioner informed respondent No.1 in regard to his arrest vide letter dated February 21, 1995. Thereafter, vide order dated March 13, 1995 (annexure P3) passed by respondent No.2 he was placed under suspension with effect from February 7, 1995 under regulation 13(2) of the Dda (Salararies, Allowances & Service Conditions) Regulations, 1961. On April 20, 1995 the petitioner made a representation (annexure P4) to respondent No.2 and after considering that representation, vide order dated May 19, 1995 (annexure P5) passed in exercise of the powers conferred by regulation 13(5) suspension order dated March 13, 1995 was revoked and he was reinstated. Petitioner submitted the joining report to the Commissioner(Personnel) on May 19, 1995 itself and he was posted as Assistant Director (Personnel Branch-I). Investigation being conducted by the Cbi is dormant and no charge sheet has been filed by it so far. It is stated that petitioner falls within the consideration zone for promotion to the rank of the Deputy Director and in the Dpc held in the month of March 1995 when his case was considered the result was kept in a sealed cover. In yet another Dpc held in the first week of August 1995 petitioner's name was again considered and result was again kept in sealed cover. It is alleged that there was no material change in the circumstances after he was reinstated in service, which would justify his re-suspension vide order dated August 7, 1995. That order emanated because of extraneous reasons, which are based on dictates of the outside authorities and is, therefore, arbitrary and bad in the eye of law. It was prayed that by issue of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, the order dated August 7, 1995 passed by respondent No.2 re- suspending the petitioner may be set aside. It was further prayed that by issue of writ of mandamus or for any other appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may be ordered to give effect to the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings held in March 1995 and in the first week of August 1995 by opening the sealed covers and to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director in case he was found fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee with all consequential benefits including the regularisation of service for the intervening period.

(2) In response to the show cause notice respondents have filed reply to the amended petition on the affidavit of A.K.Baranwal, Director(Vigilance). It is admitted that as per the lease-deed dated December 31, 1968. quarter No.G-59, Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, was leased out to Khan Chand and possession of plot bearing No.64A, Dr.Mukerjee Nagar, Kingsway Camp, was handed over to Mela Ram on October 31, 1989 by Junior Engineer, C.B.VI, DDA. It is further admitted that the Cbi lodged an Fir and arrested the petitioner alongwith other officials. The petitioner was put under suspension by the disciplinary authority as he had remained in judicial lock up for more than 48 hours. However, it is stated that the reinstatement of the petitioner was ordered without prejudice to the result of investigation and also without having the report from the CBI. The petitioner was placed under suspension again vide order dated August 7, 1995, on merits after considering all aspects including the report of the investigating agency. It is alleged that by the time the petitioner was reinstated on May 19, 1995, report of the investigating agency was not available with the respondents. Report of the investigating agency reads thus: "INVESTIGATION in this case is continuing and at this stage the Cbi has enough reason to suspect that Sh.R.D.Sharma was an active partner in the conspiracy of fraudulent allotment of the plot and he received hefty consideration for his facilitating role in the deal. It will be premature to discuss and analyse the evidence at this stage of the investigation. Sh.Sharma's reinstatement shall definitely hamper the investigation as his active posting in Dda at the moment will encourage and motivate others to non-cooperate with the investigation and to destroy the evidence."

(3) It is asserted that the suspension order dated August 7, 1995 was passed by respondent No.2 bonafide after applying its mind. In regard to the rest of the allegations made in the amended petition it is stated that reply will be filed, after the concerned files which have been seized by the Cbi are made available by it to the respondents.

(4) It is, thus, the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was arrested by the Cbi in a criminal case pertaining to plot No.1177, Dr.Mukerjee Nagar, on February 7, 1995. According to the petitioner, after he was bailed out in that case on February 14, 1995, vide letter dated February 21, 1995 he informed respondent No.1 about his detention in the case and thereafter vide order dated March 13, 1995 he was put under suspension with effect from February 7, 1995 by respondent No.2. This order was passed under said regulation 13.2, being a case of deemed suspension as is evident from annexure P3. Main ground taken in the representation dated April 20, 1995 for reinstatement (annexure P4) by the petitioner was that there was no likelihood of his tampering with the evidence as the Cbi had seized all the relevant files. Order dated May 19, 1995 (annexure P5) goes to show that the petitioner was reinstated in service by respondent No.2 as investigation against him was likely to take some time. It was only thereafter that the Cbi reported to respondent No.1 that although the investigation is still in progress but there is enough reason to suspect that the petitioner was an active partner in the conspiracy of fraudulent allotment of said plot No.1177 and had received hefty consideration for his facilitating the role in the deal. Taking note of this report, respondent No.2 chose to put the petitioner under suspension vide order dated August 7, 1995 (annexure P10). Contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that there was no material change in the circumstance since the revocation of the petitioner's order of suspension dated May 19, 1995 and respondent No.2 passed the order dated August 7, 1995 without applying the mind and, therefore, the order dated August 7, 1995 is bad in the eye of law. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the decision in Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi Vs Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal & Another, (1992)19 Atc 639. As is evident from the order dated May 19, 1995, the same was passed by respondent No.2 without reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against the petitioner in the criminal case. However, at the time order dated August 7, 1995 was passed again putting the petitioner under suspension it was within the knowledge of respondent No.2, as reported by the Cbi, that based on evidence there was enough reason to suspect the complicity of the petitioner in the crime for which the criminal case was registered by the Cbi against the petitioner and others. It was, thus, erroneous to say that there was no material change in the circumstance since the passing of the order dated May 19, 1995 warranting re-suspension of the petitioner vide order dated August 7, 1995 by respondent No.2 and that order was passed by the latter without application of mind. Decision in Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi(supra) was rendered by the Supreme Court entirely in a different context and the same is of no help to the petitioner.

(5) From the above discussion it must follow that the said order dated August 7, 1995 is not invalid and the respondents are not under a legal obligation to open the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings held in March 1995 and in the first week of August 1995 and to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director in case he was found fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee with all consequential benefits as claimed.

(6) Petition, thus, has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed but with no order as to costs.