Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... vs Amar Singh Sharma & Anr. on 13 December, 2018
$~R-2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 3000/2011 & CM No.6387/2011
Date of decision: 13th December, 2018.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR...... Appellants
Through: Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
Versus
AMAR SINGH SHARMA & ANR. ....Respondents
Through: Mr.Prabhat Kaushik, Adv. for R-1
with Mr.Amar Singh- respondent in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
The present writ petition filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
now represented by South Delhi Municipal Corporation, impugns the order
dated 19.03.2010 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1434/2009.
2. The impugned order allows the OA preferred by the respondent
before us, namely Amar Singh Sharma, and quashes the modified order of
punishment passed by the Appellate Authority dated 17.12.2008, for
reduction in pay in the time-scale of 3 stages till the date of retirement with
cumulative effect. The order of punishment prescribed by the Disciplinary
Authority vide order dated 28.11.2006 was stoppage of three increments
with cumulative effect. The impugned order also directs that the respondent
W.P. 3000/2011 page 1 of 5
would be entitled to all consequential benefits as per law within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of that order.
3. The respondent is a retired Head Clerk who worked for the petitioner
corporation and had superannuated on 31.12.2007.
4. Prior to his retirement, the respondent was served with memorandum
of charge dated 03.07.2003, with the following statement of charge:-
"Shri Amar Singh, Head Clerk was working as
House Tax Inspector in House Tax Deptt. South Zone
during the year 2001 committed gross misconduct of the
following counts:-
(i) On 15.03.2001 he visited premises No.E-2,
East of Kailash and demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe/illegal
gratification from Shri M.S. Sodhi in consideration for
giving a favourable House Tax Report.
(ii) When his illegal demand was not fulfilled
by Shri Sodhi thus Shri Amar Singh Sharma, House Tax
Inspector enhanced/increased the RV of the said property
from 1,19,100/- to Rs.4,50,00,000/- with a view to harass
Shri M.S. Sodhi as matter of facts there was no charge of
status in the said building.
He, thereby, contravened Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) of the
CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as made applicable to the
employees of the MCD".
5. The aforesaid charge sheet was served upon the respondent pursuant
to a written complaint made by one M.S. Sodhi, owner and resident of E-2,
East of Kailash, New Delhi. However, M.S. Sodhi did not appear in the
enquiry proceedings and accordingly the Inquiry Officer held that Charge
W.P. 3000/2011 page 2 of 5
No.1 was not proved. Surprisingly, the Inquiry Officer held that Charge
No.2 was proved, notwithstanding the fact that Charge No.2 as per the
memorandum of charge itself was based upon illegal gratification demand
made by the respondent. There is therefore, incongruity and contradiction in
the enquiry report and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and
the Appellate Authority. To this extent, we agree with the findings recorded
in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal that when the basic charge of
demanding money had not been proved, the second part of the charge of
enhancement of ratable value with a view to harass the complainant, which
was connected with the first charge, cannot be said to have been established.
6. Tribunal has also pointed out several errors in decision making
process. Noticeably, the respondent had filed written objections to the
enquiry report, but the order of punishment dated 28.11.2006 passed by the
Disciplinary Authority was a short one, recording that after considering the
response to the show cause notice and on examining the relevant records, the
proposed penalty of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect stands
confirmed.
7. The appeal order is equally short and states that the Commissioner,
MCD being the competent authority, after examining records of the case in
entirety was pleased to modify the punishment to that of penalty of stoppage
of three increments with cumulative effect in the time-scale till the
retirement of the respondent with cumulative effect.
8. Inquiry report observes that the ratable value of the property E-2, East
of Kailash, was erroneously enhanced from Rs.1,19,100/- to
Rs.4,50,00,000/-. As per the correct calculations, the proposed enhancement
W.P. 3000/2011 page 3 of 5
was Rs.4,50,000/-. The plea taken by the respondent was that the house-
owner had not permitted inspection of the property, which was being used as
a guest house. This fact was not disputed and found to be incorrect. The
house-owner had admitted that the property tax was being paid at the
commercial rate in respect of basement, ground floor and the first floor, but
the second and the third floors were being used for residential purposes. In
his proposal, the respondent had stated that the entire property should be
taxed at commercial rates as it was being used as a guest house. He had
accordingly prepared detailed note and a computation sheet.
9. It is no doubt true that the computation sheet is erroneous and wrong
for the figure should have been Rs.4,50,000/- and not Rs.4.50,00,000/-.
However, we find it rather strange that senior officers had examined and
verified the calculations and had approved the proposal. Only thereafter and
consequent to their approval that the notice proposing the enhancement was
issued. In fact, the figure calculated by the respondent was not
Rs.4,50,00,000/- but Rs.4,14,29,100/-, which was modified and increased by
the officers in the hierarchy. Pertinently, senior officers were not charge-
sheeted for the same fault though they had also seen, verified and approved
the computation made by the respondent.
10. Lastly, we would notice that the ratable value of the property was
finally fixed at Rs.1,37,140/-. In other words, there was some enhancement.
This was on account of conversion of the property into freehold.
11. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that
the respondent has retired and because of the penalty order was denied
pension. Subsequently, the petitioners had paid provisional pension; and
W.P. 3000/2011 page 4 of 5
presently full pension as per law is being paid to him. Counsel on
instructions from respondent who is present in Court states that the
respondent would like to bring the litigation to an end, and would only
request that arrears of pension, be paid, within a period of six months from
today. He would accept the same even if no interest is paid.
12. Taking the statement made by the counsel for the respondent on
record, we dispose of the present writ petition without any order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA
(JUDGE)
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 13, 2018
neelam
W.P. 3000/2011 page 5 of 5
