Delhi High Court
Prakash Chauhan vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... on 29 April, 2013
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: April 29, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 7402/2012
PRAKASH CHAUHAN .....Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Prabhsahay Kaur, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Charge against the petitioner was of mutating property
No.15, Rajpur Road in the name of private persons after 20 years of the
death of the recorded owner. Additionally, of not ensuring that the Zonal
Inspector make the mandatory visit to inspect the property recording
status of who is in possession of the property since mutation was applied
after 20 years of the death of the recorded owner.
2. It so happened that in the interregnum the property came
under the ownership of the State of Rajasthan. After mutation was
effected in the municipal record, when State of Rajasthan objected the
same was cancelled.
3. Petitioner was working as the Assistant Assessor and
Collector with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and was charged with
the duty of ensuring compliance with the procedures prescribed before
effecting mutation.
4. The Zonal Inspector as also the petitioner were charge-
sheeted.
5. As regards the Zonal Inspector he superannuated by the time
the enquiry was completed. Vide resolution dated July 31, 2009 the
Corporation decided to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the
Zonal Inspector.
6. As regards the petitioner, penalty levied is reduction in the
time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative
effect.
7. Challenge by the petitioner before the Central
Administrative Tribunal to the penalty imposed has failed.
8. First contention urged is that by dropping the disciplinary
proceedings against the Zonal Inspector who put up the file without
inspecting the property, the petitioner has been discriminated against.
9. Now, the Zonal Inspector Shri Ram Babu had superannuated
by the time the enquiry report was submitted. Rather than observing that
the wrong committed did not result in any pecuniary loss to the
Corporation and that it was a case of dereliction of duty and hence not a
grave misconduct, thus no penalty could be levied upon Ram Babu who
had superannuated from service; for the reason it is settled law that for a
pensioner, only penalty which can be levied is a cut in pension envisaged
by Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rules; but upon the misconduct being a
grave misconduct, the Corporation resolved to drop the proceedings.
10. As we read the intention behind the decision of the
Corporation, the same is that the proved misconduct was not a grave
misconduct.
11. That apart, there cannot be any equality claimed in the
negative. If the Corporation acted wrongly with respect to Ram Babu, it
would not mean that the Corporation would be compelled to do another
wrong.
12. It is then urged that a mutation in the record of the
Corporation pertains only to liability to pay house tax and has no concern
with the ownership. It is urged that the mutation was trivial.
13. We do not agree.
14. The common man does not know aforesaid legal distinction.
A common man may be misled, in that, since the person whose name is
mutated in the Municipal record pays tax to the Corporation he could be
presumed by a lay person to be the owner of the property.
15. It indeed a serious matter that a property belonging to the
Government was permitted to be mutated in the name of a private
individual.
16. The penalty levied as noted above is reduction in the time
scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years without cumulative
effect.
17. The penalty is adequate.
18. We dismiss the writ petition but without any order as to
costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(V. KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2013
rk
