Ajay Pal Singh vs Delhi High Court And Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3492 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         WP (C) No. 4977 OF 2010

%                                          Date of Decision: 27th July, 2010.

      AJAY PAL SINGH                                            . . . Petitioner

                          through :          Mr. R.K. Saini with Mr. Sitab Ali
                                             Chaudhary, Advocates

                                VERSUS

      DELHI HIGH COURT AND ANR.                              . . .Respondents

                          through:           Mr. Viraj R. Dattar with Mr.
                                             Chetan Lokur, Advocates for the
                                             respondent No.1
                                             Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate
                                             for the respondent No.2

CORAM :-
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

      1.     Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
             to see the Judgment?
      2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?
      3.     Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

A.K. SIKRI, J. (Oral)

1. Rule D.B.

2. Notice. Mr. Viraj R. Dattar, learned counsel for the respondent

No.1 and Ms. Latika Chaudhary, learned counsel for the

respondent No.2 accept notice of Rule and waive the service.

They further agree that short question of law is involved in this

case for which no counter affidavit is required to be filed, as all

the documents along with this writ petition are placed on record

by the petitioner. Counsel for both the parties are prepared to

argue the matter. With the consent of the parties, we have heard

the matter finally today itself.

3. Keeping in view the order which we propose to pass, it is not

necessary to delineate the facts in detail. Suffice is to point out

that the petitioner is an employee of the District Court, Delhi. He

was appointed as Mali and was working in the Karkardooma Court

since 1993 at the seat of Dak Peon and attached with different

Courts. An anonymous complaint was received by the

Department alleging that the petitioner has purchased some

property in the name of his sons. A Fact Finding Enquiry was

instituted against the petitioner and the matter was entrusted

with Shri S.C. Malik, Additional District Judge. The property in

question qua which there was a complaint bearing No.B-2/163,

Yamuna Vihar, Delhi, the first floor of the same was purchased on

21.06.2006 @ Rs.8.00 lakhs in the name of Smt. Sarita, wife of his

son, Azad Singh, which means Smt. Sarita is daughter-in-law of

the petitioner. Second floor with roof rights was purchased on

29.01.2007 by Shri Anand Singh, another son of the petitioner @

Rs.13.00 lakhs. After the report of the Fact Finding Authority, a

regular charge sheet was served to the petitioner. The inquiry

was held. The Inquiry Officer submitted its report opining that the

charge against the petitioner was not proved. The Disciplinary

Authority did not agree with those findings and issued notice. The

petitioner gave reply thereto. After receiving the reply, the

Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from

service with further stipulation that he shall be a disqualification

for future employment under the Government. This penalty was

imposed vide orders dated 30.09.2009.

4. At this stage, we may point out that the defence of the petitioner

was that the aforesaid property was purchased by his daughter-in-

law and sons respectively; they had their own earnings and

nothing was contributed by the petitioner in this regard. This was

not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, who returned the

finding that daughter-in-law and son of the petitioner were of

20/22 (though as per the petitioner, they were 23/27 years of age

respectively) years of age and they could not have earned and

accumulated more than Rs.20 lakhs to buy the property in their

names. He inferred that the amount was contributed by the

petitioner. He also inferred that the petitioner could not have

amassed and saved that much of amount keeping in view his

known sources of income. The petitioner had put up his defence

that his daughter-in-law and sons had taken loans from the banks.

However, in spite of the repeated opportunities given to the

petitioner to produce any documentary evidence, he failed to do

so. However, the petitioner produced the documents from the

banks, viz., Canara Bank and Federal Bank Ltd. before the

Appellate Authority to show that his daughter-in-law and his sons

had taken loans for the purchase of the aforesaid property. The

Appellate Authority, however, refused to admit this evidence on

the ground that when in spite of adequate opportunities given to

the petitioner to prove that his sons and daughter-in-law had

taken loan from the banks, he had not availed the opportunity and

there was no reason to grant any further opportunity to the

petitioner to prove the same. The Appellate Authority also

rejected the contention of the petitioner that it was not beyond his

control to produce the required documents and in any case, he

could have summoned the bank officials to prove that loans were

advanced by the respective banks to the two sons and the

daughter-in-law of the petitioner. Challenging this order, the

present writ petition is filed.

5. No doubt, the petitioner was given opportunity to prove that his

sons and daughter-in-law had taken loans from the said two banks

and the petitioner failed to avail that opportunity. However, we

are still of the opinion that when these documents were produced

before the Appellate Authority and sufficient reasons were

furnished by the petitioner because of which he could not produce

the documents earlier, one further opportunity should have been

granted to the petitioner to prove his defence. We are making

these observations also keeping in view the fact that the

documents, which were produced before the Appellate Authority

and are annexed with the present writ petition indicate that some

loans have been taken by the daughter-in-law and sons of the

petitioner from Canara Bank and Federal Bank Ltd. The statement

of accounts from these banks have been filed. They match with

the dates on which the loans were dispersed and property

purchased. These being the bank documents, there is no

possibility of tampering with the same or fabricate such record at

a later date. After all, we are dealing with a case of an employee

and even if it is to be treated that there was negligence on the

part of the petitioner in not producing the documents to prove his

defence, such a hyper-technical view should not have been taken

by not permitting the petitioner to prove his defence. If the

petitioner is able to establish from the documents/records that the

loans were taken by the sons and daughter-in-law of the

petitioner, it may form complete defence to the charges leveled

against him.

6. As pointed out above, the petitioner was appointed in the year

1993 and he has rendered more than 15 years of service. When it

is a question of protecting his employment, we feel that the

petitioner should be given one more chance to prove his defence.

Governed by these reasons, we set aside the orders dated

30.09.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the

order dated 22.01.2010 by the Appellate Authority. The matter is

remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority, who will give an

opportunity to the petitioner to produce the said documents and

also witnesses in support of his defence. After giving the

opportunity and considering the material brought on record by the

petitioner, further action shall be taken by the Disciplinary

Authority.

7. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

(A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE

(REVA KHETRAPAL) JUDGE JULY 27, 2010.

pmc