Surinder Kumar Sharma vs M.C.D. And Anr.
2007 Latest Caselaw 617 Del

JUDGMENT

Rekha Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner - Shri Surinder Kumar Sharma is presently working as Assistant Accounts Officer with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In the year 1982, he was a Lower Division Clerk and in his such capacity, he made a note in a file concerning one Smt. Prem Kumari who was in occupation of Shed No. 27 in Madanpur Khadar, Delhi, little knowing that many years after the said note would become his nemesis. The note in question was to the following effect:

Smt. Prem Kumari, submitted an affidavit as a successor of late Shri Godarmal, the allottee of 20 rings in Shed No. 27, Madanpur Khadar. Her husband is working out of India as per affidavit. If agree, demand notice for license fee in the name of Smt. Prem Kumar the daughter-in-law of late Sh. Godarmal the allottee of 20 rings in Shed No. 27, Madanpur Khadar may kindly be issued.

2. After a decade and five years, to be precise, on 26th February, 1997, the aforesaid note came to haunt the petitioner. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi decided to hold an inquiry against him, on the allegation, that he deliberately and with mala fide intention committed an act of omission by issuing a demand notice in the name of Smt. Prem Kumari, daughter-in-law of the original allottee without getting mutation approved from the competent authority in favor of Smt. Prem Kumari as required under the procedure prescribed for such jobs. Needless to say, the petitioner denied the allegation. In view of his denial, inquiry was conducted against him which culminated in the imposition of penalty of 'reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect'. He preferred an appeal against the penalty so imposed but with no success. It is the order imposing the penalty and the order rejecting his appeal against which he has preferred the present writ petition.

3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court passed in the case of Shri Ramesh Singh v. MCD, Delhi and Ors. bearing Writ Petition (C) No. 64 of 1998 on May 6, 2004. The petitioner in the said case was one Shri Ramesh Singh. He was also a Lower Division Clerk in the same office, dealt with the same file of Smt. Prem Kumari and made the same noting as the present petitioner. He happened to deal with the file after the present petitioner had relinquished the charge. He too was served with a similar charge-sheet as the petitioner and after the same gap of 15 years. The said Shri Ramesh Singh approached this Court after he was served with the charge-sheet with a prayer that the same be quashed as it was issued to him after an inordinate delay of 15 years. The High Court allowed the writ petition and consequently quashed the charge-sheet.

4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent that there is a qualitative difference between the case of the petitioner and that of Shri Ramesh Singh inasmuch as, while the petitioner by participating in the inquiry took a chance of a favorable decision and did not immediately prefer a writ petition when the charge-sheet was issued to him, Shri Ramesh Singh approached this Court immediately upon issuance of the charge-sheet.

5. Should the case of the petitioner be treated differently from that of Shri Ramesh Singh merely because he faced an inquiry on a similar charge while Shri Ramesh Singh did not?

6. What cannot be lost sight of is that both the petitioner and Shri Ramesh Singh were alleged to have committed the same irregularity. Both were accused of failing to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty unbecoming of a public servant. Both were charge-sheeted identically after an inordinate delay of 15 years. The mere fact that the petitioner underwent an inquiry cannot alter the factual position that in his case also it was after a lapse of 15 years that the Municipal Corporation chose to initiate disciplinary action. There is no reason why his case should not be dealt on the same footing as that of Shri Ramesh Singh. In any case, the charge-sheet in the case of Shri Ramesh Singh was not only quashed on the ground of delay but also on merits. The relevant paragraphs where this Court has dealt with the merits of the case are reproduced below:

15. If the charges are very grave, it would be a relevant factor to be considered while balancing public interest vis-a-vis the private interest. I note that the charge is not grave. It is also not a case where the petitioner has fabricated any record. It is not a case where the petitioner has defalcated public money. Petitioner had joined service in the month of November, 1983. the allegation relates to acts of omission and commission as of the month March, 1984. It has not been explained by counsel for the respondent as to why no action was taken against the Deputy Director because in my opinion it was for the Deputy Director to ensure procedure being followed. It is a classic case of picking on junior officers while ignoring misconduct of senior officers.

16. Delay is of 14 years. The delay remains unexplained. The nature of the allegations against the petitioner coupled with the fact he had been in service for only 3 months and was yet to acquire practical experience coupled with the fact that no action has been taken against the Deputy Director, I am of the opinion that the charge sheet against the petitioner requires to be quashed.

7. Having regard to the afore-mentioned judgment, particularly, the paragraphs extracted above, with which I agree, I find no justification to deal with the case of the petitioner differently from that of Shri Ramesh Singh. Accordingly, the order dated 18th August, 1999 imposing the penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect and the order dated 20th April, 2001 passed in appeal are quashed with no order as to cost.