Delhi Development Authority & ... vs Sita Ram & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 2467 Del

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                             R.P. 276/2009 IN WP (C) No. 3305 OF 2008


%                                                            Date of Decision: 07th May, 2010

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.                                           . . . PETITIONERS

                                                through :    Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate


                                                VERSUS

SITA RAM & ORS                                                             .....RESPONDENTS

                                           Through           Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate
                                                             with Mr. Gaurav Khanna,Advocate.


CORAM :-

          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

          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. Respondent herein was served with chargesheet dated 12th February, 1998

levelling certain charges against him. Enquiry was held in which charges were

proved and on that basis disciplinary authority passed orders dated 17th November,

1998 imposing upon him the penalty of compulsory retirement. The respondent

challenged this order by filing writ petition in this Court which was transferred to

Central Administrative Tribunal after the issuance of Notifications under Section 14

(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act bringing the employees of DDA under the

jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal. This petition was allowed by the Tribunal

vide judgment dated 4th December, 2007 and order of penalty passed by the

disciplinary authority was set aside. Challenging that order, petitioner filed writ

petition bearing no.3305/2008. This writ petition was partly allowed while

maintaining the decision of the Tribunal on the merits of the case, another

contention of the DDA that in such a case it should have been allowed to hold a

fresh enquiry was accepted and on this basis order of the Tribunal was modified

vide judgment dated 4.11.2008 making it clear that disciplinary authority could

decide as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, fresh enquiry was

required to be ordered or not. It was also observed that incase disciplinary authority

decides to hold fresh enquiry, it would be open to the disciplinary authority to pass

appropriate orders in respect of the period from the date of compulsory retirement

till reinstatement. At the same time, the DDA was also directed to reinstate the

respondent with immediate effect and following directions in this behalf was

given:-

"We are informed that when the enquiry was held earlier against the respondent, he was not placed under suspension and he continued to discharge his duties. If fresh enquiry is to be held, since the punishment order has already been set aside, conclusions that would follow would be to reinstate the respondent, and therefore, we are not interfering with that direction passed by the learned Tribunal".

2. Present review petition is preferred by the DDA seeking review of the

aforesaid directions whereby this Court directed the DDA to reinstate the

respondent. It is submitted that at the time of giving these directions it was not

brought to the notice of the Court that there is a specific provision in DDA

(Salaries, allowances and condition of service) Regulations, 1961 which deals with

such a situation in the form of Regulation 20 (4) and it reads as under:-

" Where a penalty of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon an employee is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of law and the disciplinary authority in consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold further enquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original orders of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders."

3. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid Regulations are framed in exercise of

the power conferred under Section 47 of the Delhi Development Act, and therefore,

are having statutory force. As per this Regulation, once the penalty of dismissal

or removal or compulsory retirement is set aside by a Court of law and disciplinary

authority decides to hold fresh enquiry against delinquent employee "... the

employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing

authority from the date of the original orders of dismissal or removal........".

4. Having regard to the aforesaid statutory provisions, it is clear that our

directions to reinstate the respondent was no correct and, therefore, needs to be

modified. Accordingly, we modify the orders dated 4th November, 2008 to this

extent and direct that the respondent shall be deemed to be under suspension from

the date of compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension

until further orders that may be passed by the disciplinary authority.

5. Learned Counsel for the DDA informs that show cause notice has already

been given to the respondent about the quantum of suspension allowance which

would be payable to the respondent and respondent has also filed his reply thereto.

The decision thereon shall be taken within two weeks and whatever suspension

allowance is admissible to the respondent for the aforesaid period shall be paid to

him within four weeks.

6. Another error which crept in the orders dated 4th November, 2008 is pointed

out by learned counsel for the DDA that the name of a witness who had appeared

in the fact finding enquiry is typed as Mansukh Ram whereas the actual name of

the witness was Nanak Chand s/o Mansukh Ram. The correction is carried out in

today's date and initialed.

(A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE May 07, 2010.

skb