Union Of India vs Deepak Panwar
2011 Latest Caselaw 3601 Del

$~30.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       W.P.(C) 5298/2011

                                       Date of order: 28th July, 2011

        UNION OF INDIA                         ..... Petitioner
                      Through Mr. Jayendra, Advocate.

                         versus

        DEEPAK PANWAR                       ..... Respondent
                    Through Mr. Ashish Nischal, Advocate
                    for the Caveator/respondent.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

        In this writ petition filed on or about 5th May, 2011, Union of

India, Ministry of Urban Development, has assailed the order

dated 21st April, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi (for short, the tribunal) allowing

O.A. No. 3167/2009 filed by the respondent-Deepak Panwar.

The writ petition is filed belatedly and there is delay of more than

one year in filing of the writ petition. The only ground mentioned

is that the matter was sent to the Ministry of Law for obtaining

consent and the delay is not intentional.           This explanation

without details does not merit acceptance.

W.P. (C) No. 5298/2011                                        Page 1 of 3
 2.      The aforesaid aspect is important as the tribunal had

allowed the original application filed by the respondent and

quashed the Memorandum of Charge dated 16th September,

2009 on the ground of delay. The said memorandum pertains to

the period 1997-98, when the respondent was working as an

Executive Engineer (Civil), Bikaner, Rajasthan and was the

Engineer-in-Charge for construction of 20 numbers light/medium

vehicles garages. The allegation against the respondent is that

the work was executed in the absence of approved structural

designs/drawings, ignoring provisions of technical sanctioned

estimate and architectural drawings and he had failed to

effectively supervise the work as result cracks had appeared in

beams, roof slabs and brick masonry columns, entailing an extra

expenditure of about Rs.86,000/- in repairs. The tribunal noticed

that the charge sheet had been issued after a gap of about

twelve years. Further, the so-called cracks had been reported in

the year 2000-01 and there was no explanation for the delay of

more than eight years between 2001 and 2009 when the charge

sheet was issued.        The   tribunal   has   examined   the   said

aspect      in    detail in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order.     The

tribunal also noticed the difficulty, problem and prejudice caused

W.P. (C) No. 5298/2011                                      Page 2 of 3
 to the respondent because of delay in the initiation of the

disciplinary proceeding in the present case keeping in view the

nature of the memorandum.              It would be difficult or rather

impossible        for    the   respondent   to   collect   the   material,

papers/documents and remember what had happened.                       The

present case is not one where there is an allegation that the

respondent had indulged in any financial irregularity.

3.      Keeping in view the facts found and the reasoning given

by the tribunal, we are not inclined to exercise discretionary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a

matter which shows that at every stage there has been delay

and laches on the part of the petitioner.

        The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.



                                                 SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JULY 28, 2011 VKR