Sh.Sri Krishna vs Mcd & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 1400 Del

*                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                                 WP(C ) No.1728/2010


%                             Date of Decision: 12.03.2010


Sh.Sri Krishna                                                .... Petitioner
                              Through Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.


                                       Versus


MCD & Ors.                                                   .... Respondents
                 Through               Ms.Suparna Srivastava, Advocate.

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 has impugned the order dated 17th April, 2009

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal , Principal Bench, New

Delhi in O.A No.243/2009 titled as Sh.Sri Krishna v. Municipal

Corporation of Delhi, dismissing his original application filed against

the punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect

imposed by order dated 25th October, 2000 and dismissal of his appeal

by order dated 30th April, 2002 which were challenged by the petitioner

after retirement from service on 30th November, 2008, in January,

2009.

The Tribunal has held that the application is not only barred by

limitation as provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal's

Act, 1985 but also suffers from delay and latches.

The petitioner was charge sheeted on 6th October, 1997 and at

that time he was posted as Zonal Engineer in city zone of MCD and was

holding two charges as Zonal Engineer (Building) and Zonal Engineer

(Dangerous Building). The allegation against him was that he

committed gross negligence and misconduct and failed to maintain

devotion to duty by connivance with the owner/builder of property

No.1721, Cheera Khana, Nai Sarak, Delhi. A request for repair was

received from Sh.Atul Mehta, owner of the property which was granted

immediately on the same date by the petitioner without ascertaining

any comment from the dangerous building department and without

verifying that a show cause notice under Section 344 (i) and 343 of

DMC Act had already been issued to the said owner. The owner of the

building was able to get a stay on the basis of the reply received from

the petitioner to the request of the owner of the building for permission

for repair.

The enquiry officer had held taking into consideration the

different facts which were proved against him that there was

connivance between the charged official that is the petitioner and the

owner of the building and the disciplinary authority agreeing with the

report of the enquiry officer rightly imposed the punishment of stoppage

of two increments with future effect. The order imposing punishment

dated 25th October, 2000 was affirmed in appeal by order dated 30th

April, 2002.

The Original Application before the Tribunal challenging the order

of punishment dated 25th October, 2002 affirmed in appeal on 30th

April, 2002 was filed on 21st January, 2009. The tribunal had noted

that there was no application for condonation of delay along with the

Original Application and consequently the delay in filing the original

application could not be condoned under Section 21 of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The learned counsel for the petitioner before us has contended

that he had been making representations to the respondent for filing

the original application. However, merely making representation to the

respondent shall not extend the limitation for filing the original

application. The learned counsel is also unable to show any precedent

laying down that on account of making representations the limitation

for filing the original application can be extended.

The petitioner has also failed to establish even the alleged

representations allegedly filed by him against the penalty order dated

25th October, 2000 and 30th April, 2002, as only one undated

representation was filed before the Tribunal. The learned counsel has

admitted that copies of none of the alleged representations has been

filed even before this Court. In the circumstances, the plea that the

petitioner had been making representations against the punishment

imposed upon him which was confirmed in appeal, can be accepted. In

these circumstances the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner has

failed even to establish that he had been filing representations against

the punishment imposed upon him cannot be faulted and therefore, the

finding that the original application filed by the petitioner was barred

under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 cannot be

interfered with.

The learned counsel is unable to show any cogent reason

challenging the order awarding punishment almost after 9 years which

has also been done after his retirement. In the circumstances, the

petitioner has failed to make out any ground to interfere with the order

of the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal dismissing the petition does

not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which will require any

interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is without any merit, and it is, therefore,

dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

MARCH 12, 2010                               MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'