H.L. Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi)
1999 Latest Caselaw 90 Del

JUDGMENT

K. Ramumoorthy, J

1. The point involved in the case is covered by the judgement of this court in similar writ petition No. 1091 of 1985. A joint disciplinary Inquiry was started against the petitioner and the petitioner in CW No. 109:1/85 by an order dated 23.05.1984. The order reads as under:

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

(VIGILANCE BRANCH)

ORDER No. 70/Vig/84 dt. 23rd May 84

ORDER

Whereas S/Shri M.L.Varshney, SH. Delip Sing, A.e. and H.L, Sharma, J.E., D.D.A. arc jointly concerned in a disciplinary case.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by D.D.A. (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1961 the undersigned hereby directs:

1) That disciplinary action against the said officers/ officials shall be taken in common proceedings.

2) The Vice-Chairman, DDA shall function as Disciplinary Authority in this case for the purpose of common proceedings and shall be competent to impose the penalties prescribed in Regulations 14 of the said Regulations.

3) The Procedure prescribed in Regulations 16 of the said Regulation shall be followed in the said proceedings.

(H.C. Khanna)

Vice-Chair man,

Delhi Development Authority

2. The writ petition filed by Mr.M.L. Varshney. His Lordship Mr. Vijender Jain passed the following orders:

20.9.95 Present: Mr. Ravi Gupta for the petitioner.

Civil Writ Petition No. 1091/85

The challenge in this writ petition is to be passing of the impugned order by the authority, which is not competent to pass the order of dismissal from service. The impugned order has been passed on 16.4.1985 by the Chairman of Delhi Development Authority (in short "DDA").

Mr. Ravi Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the Central Government is the competent authority for passing the order of dismissal, Similar question came up before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.P. Sharma v. DDA Civil Writ Petition No. 2402/1991 decided on September 23, 1993. The Division Bench of this Court in that case that the Vice-Chairman of DDA is not the competent authority to impose the penalty of removal from service of Class-I offices. A Special Leave Petition was taken out by the respondent-DDA against one said order the same was withdrawn.

Therefore, I need not go into the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is suffice to say that on this short ground alone and relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in R.P. Sharma v. DDA (supra), the impugned order passed by the Chairman of the DDA is quashed. The Rule is made absolute. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. The petitioner shall report for duty to the Vice-Chairman, DDA within one week.

The petition is disposed of in terms of the above order.

Dasti.

Sd/-

Vijender Jain, J

3. Mr. G.D. Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner refer to Regulation 18 of the Regulations which deals with the competent authority to impose penalty. Regulation 18 reads as under:

"18 Joint inquiry:- (1) Where two or more officers or employees of the Authority are concerned in any case, the authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such officers and servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceedings.

2) Any such order shall specify-

i) the authority which may function as the disciplinary authority for the purpose of such common proceedings;

ii) the penalties specified in regulation 14 which such disciplinary authority shall be competent to impose; and

iii) whether the procedure prescribed in regulation 16 of regulation 17 may be followed in the proceedings".

The judgement rendered by Mylord Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijender Jain would cover this case. The other points argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. G.D. Gupta are left open. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 16.04.1985 and 21.04.1987 are quashed, petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. The petitioner shall report for duty within 15 days.