Delhi High Court
Delhi Development Authority vs Shri R.V. Bansal on 12 January, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.10907/2009
% Date of Decision: 12.01.2010
Delhi Development Authority .... Petitioner
Through Ms.Ansuya Salwan, Advocate
Versus
Shri R.V. Bansal .... Respondent
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner, Delhi Development Authority, impugns the order
dated 29th February, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in TA No.151 of 2007, titled Shri
R.V. Bansal v. DDA whereby the memorandum of charges issued to the
respondent was set aside and it was held that the respondent is
deemed to have retired normally and granting all the consequential
benefits to him.
The respondent had filed a writ petition before this court claiming
that the charge sheet issued to him and the proposed inquiry against
him was illegal. The respondent was an Assistant Engineer. He has
since retired after attaining the age of superannuation. The respondent
was originally appointed with Municipal Corporation of Delhi and later
on came to Delhi Development Authority and was promoted as an
Assistant Engineer in 1982. He was in-charge of specific work relating
to construction of MIG houses during the period March, 1982 to
December, 1982.
relating to construction of MIG houses, a memorandum of charge had
been issued to him on 20th July, 1989, seven years after he was
transferred from the said work alleging that while working as Assistant
Engineer for the period March 1982 to December 1982, the work under
his supervision was improper and defective and the petitioner had to
shell out funds in favour of the contractors on account of the defective
work. Though the respondent filed a prompt reply but no further
proceedings had been initiated against the respondent till 1992. An
inquiry officer had been appointed to look into the charges in 1992 only.
This has not been disputed that the Chief Engineer had submitted his
finding in respect of alleged defective work on 5th March, 1983 and on
27th July, 1983 an explanation was called from the respondent which
was promptly replied by him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of Shri
Alok Swarup, Director (Vigilance), stipulating that considering the
findings on 3rd February, 1984, the matter was referred to the Vigilance
Commission, however, from 1984 to till 1989 nothing was done and on
20th July, 1989, major penalty chargesheet was issued after five years.
Again reply was filed by the respondent, however, for another two years
inquiry officer was not appointed. On 10th January, 1992, an officer of
CVC was appointed as an investigating officer and thereafter different
investigating officers were appointed.
From the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is also revealed that
the respondent had filed a writ petition on 20th July, 1993 challenging
the competency of the Vice Chairman, DDA, to act as a disciplinary
authority which petition was dismissed on 20th July, 1994. In another
petition filed by the respondent, by order dated 14th December, 1993,
the petitioner was allowed to continue with the inquiry, however,
petitioner was directed not to pass the final order.
The Tribunal has considered these facts and relying on the
precedents of the Supreme Court and the fact that no proper
explanation has been given by the petitioner for the delay in initiating
the enquiry against the respondent has quashed the proceedings. The
Tribunal has also considered and held that the nature of allegation also
reflects that lack of supervision cannot be imputed to the respondent on
the basis of the material produced by the petitioner, as even the
chargesheet indicated that Junior Engineer was in-charge of work and
the respondent was having only a supervisory role.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to give any cogent
reason for delay. Even the additional affidavit dated 6th October, 2009
filed pursuant to the direction of the Court does not explain the delay
except giving various dates on which the actions were taken by the
petitioner and their officials. Why the delay took place has not been
explained nor any reasons given.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the petitioner
had failed to make out any illegality or such irregularity in the order of
the Tribunal dated 29th February, 2008 which would require
interference by this Court in exercised of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is
dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
January 12, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'anb/Dev'
