Delhi Development Authority vs Sh.Yudhister Yadav
2010 Latest Caselaw 2853 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P. (C.) No.3794/2010

%                     Date of Decision: 31.05.2010

Delhi Development Authority                          .... Petitioner
                    Through Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate

                               Versus

Sh.Yudhister Yadav                                  .... Respondent
                      Through Mr.Vinod Kumar, 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 Delhi Development Authority has challenged the

order dated 13th October, 2009 passed by Central Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A bearing No.2621/2008

titled Sh.Yudhister Yadav, Junior Engineer (C) v. Delhi Development

Authority allowing his application for quashing the charges framed

against him in 2008 for the alleged lapses in supervising the

construction in 1992-1993.

While allowing the original application of the respondent the

Tribunal relied on a similar case where the memorandum of charges

against the similarly placed junior engineers were quashed in O.A

bearing No.2585/2008 titled Sh.Shailendra Kumar v. Delhi

Development Authority which was also allowed by the Tribunal by order

dated 8th September, 2009. The Tribunal while allowing the application

of the respondent had held that for the parity of reasons given in the

case of Shailendra Kumar the application of the respondent is also to be

allowed.

Against the order passed in O.A bearing No.2585/2008 titled

Sh.Shailendra Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority a writ petition

being W.P(C) No.3793/2010 titled as Delhi Development Authority Vs

Shailendra Kumar was filed by the petitioner, Delhi Development

Authority which has been dismissed by this Court by order dated 31st

May, 2010.

The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any

substantial difference in the case of respondent with that of Shailendra

Kumar (supra).

Therefore, for the reasons stated in W.P(C) No.3793/2010 titled

as Delhi Development Authority Vs Shailendra Kumar which has been

dismissed by this Court by order dated 31st May, 2010, this Court does

not find any such illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal

dated 10th September, 2009 which will necessitate any interference by

this Court.

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

dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

May 31, 2010                                MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'