Uoi & Ors. vs Prakash Chandra & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 6227 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Date of decision: 19th December, 2011
+                            W.P.(C) 8812/2011

%        UOI & ORS.                                          ..... Petitioner
                           Through:     Mr.    Anuj Aggarwal with Mr.
                                        Gaurav Khanna, Adv. for UOI.

                        Versus
    PRAKASH CHANDRA & ORS.                 ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Adv. for R-2
                            UPSC.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                                 JUDGMENT

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the order dated 4 th May, 2011 of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench allowing OA No.2340/2010

preferred by the respondent no.1. The said OA was preferred assailing the

order dated 16th March, 2010 of the Disciplinary Authority, acting under

order of and in the name of President of India, withdrawing on a

permanent basis 10% of the monthly pension sanctioned to the respondent

no.1.

2. The respondent no.1 retired as Executive Engineer (Civil) CPWD on

31st January, 1996. He was, on 26th March, 1998 i.e. after more than two

years of his retirement, charged with having committed certain

irregularities, while functioning as Executive Engineer PWD Division

No.V from 1st June 1992 to 1st June 1995, in preparing estimates, placing

work orders and making payments for these works. An Inquiring Authority

was appointed, which submitted its report dated 8th September, 2005

holding three of the four charges to be partly proved and the fourth charge

to be not proved. The Disciplinary Authority in consultation with the

UPSC concluded that the charges against the respondent related mainly to

non-compliance of standardized CPWD Code contained in CPWD

MANUALS, in estimation, execution, test checks; that the errors in the

final bills had resulted in arbitration; however since the charges were only

partly proved and giving benefit of doubt to the respondent, the

Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of withdrawal of 10%

monthly pension on permanent basis.

3. The Tribunal in the detailed impugned order and on the basis of the

report of the Inquiring Authority and the advice of the UPSC has found

that several mitigating circumstances pointed out in the advice and the

inquiry report itself completely watered down the charges against the

respondent; that there was a great deal of urgency about completing the

work in a very short period so as to conclude the same before the assembly

elections then due; that the prices of the items used in the works were

expected to go up during the period of elections; that the petitioner had

failed to show that other divisions carried out the works at lesser cost; that

the respondent had only one day to make corrections before the close of

financial year; that the responsibility of sending the estimates to the Chief

Electoral Officer was of someone else. It was thus concluded that the

charge against the respondent of misconduct could not be sustained and at

best it could be said that he was negligent in not personally considering the

revised estimates being sent to the Chief Electoral Officer. The Tribunal

relying on Union of India v. J. Ahmed AIR 1979 SC 1022 held that mere

negligence could not be called misconduct. Accordingly it was held that

the advice of the UPSC was flawed and the Disciplinary Authority had not

considered all the said pleas raised in the representation of the respondent

and the order was thus a non-speaking on the said aspects.

4. We are unable to find any perversity in the order of the Tribunal for

us to entertain this petition in exercise of our powers of judicial review.

The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DECEMBER 19, 2011 pp