Delhi High Court
Delhi Jal Board And Anr. vs Usha Kapoor on 17 December, 2019
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 17.12.2019
+ W.P.(C) 12850/2019 & CM APPL. No. 52498/2019
DELHI JAL BOARD AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. S.U. Abbas, Advocate.
versus
USHA KAPOOR ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. A.K. Panwar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
JUDGMENT
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The respondent herein joined the service of the Delhi Jal Board
as a Lower Division Clerk ('LDC') in the year 1972. She was
promoted from time-to-time and her last posting was as Zonal
Revenue Officer ('ZRO'). The respondent retired from the service on
attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2013.
2. After her retirement, the respondent was issued a charge memo
dated 13.03.2014. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as
subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority, led to the filing of
an OA which was allowed; and the Tribunal's order dated 09.07.2019
has led to the filing of the present writ petition.
W.P.(C) 12850/2019 page 1 of 5
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Central
Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal') has passed the impugned order
without taking into consideration the settled law as enunciated by the
Supreme Court in Parma Nanda vs. State of Haryana and Ors.,
reported as (1989) 2 SCC 177, as per which the findings of an Inquiry
Officer cannot be interfered with unless the same are found to be
arbitrary or perverse.
4. Counsel further submits that the impugned order does not point-
out any irregularity or illegality in the disciplinary proceedings. He
points-out that the order has been passed in total disregard of various
DoPT OMs dated 28.02.1990, 28.03.1994, and others, which provide
that the penalty that can lawfully be imposed once misconduct is
proved.
5. Counsel for the respondent however submits that there is no
infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the
respondent was in fact instrumental in ensuring that the money
collected by Beldar/Meter Reader was deposited with the department
which is evident from the fact that after she joined as ZRO on
23.08.2011, she issued two memos each to the Beldar/Sh. Om Prakash
and the Head Clerk; and it was only upon her taking the initiative that
the money owed to the DJB was deposited in two instalments on
12.07.2012 and 28.07.2012.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
considered their submissions.
W.P.(C) 12850/2019 page 2 of 5
7. In this case, the allegation is that when the respondent was
ZRO, since the moneys collected by the Beldar/Meter Reader between
31.03.2011 and 24.04.2012 were not deposited even after one year of
her joining, a charge memo dated 13.03.2014 was issued to her after
the respondent retired. The allegation in the charge-memo was that
one Sh. Om Prakash, Beldar/Meter Reader had failed to deposit with
the department the amount collected by him as water charges between
August, 2011 and April, 2012; and that the respondent had failed to
persuade him to deposit such amount during her tenure as ZRO. The
stand of the respondent is that the major part of such amounts related
to a period before she joined as ZRO ; and that after her joining as
ZRO, when she learnt that the moneys had not been deposited, she
took necessary steps to ensure that the moneys got deposited with the
Delhi Jal Board.
8. The article of charge issued against the respondent reads as
under :
"ARTICLE of Charge
That Smt. Usha Kapoor, W/O Sh. S.K. Kapoor, While
functioning as ZRO (NE) II during the year 2010 to 2011, has
committed misconduct in as much as he failed to persuade Sh.
Om Parkash, Beldar/Meter Reader, to deposit the amount so
collected by him as water charges dues w.e.f. Oct. 2010 to Aug,
2011 through G-8, receipts as details given here under.
Sl. G.8 Receipt Date Amount
No. Number
Rs.
1 262008 to 262011 16.10.2010 8736.00
2 262012 to 262069 25.10.2010 to 03.2011 303844.00
W.P.(C) 12850/2019 page 3 of 5
3 3262070 to 31.03.2011 to 99630.00
262084 24.04.2012
Total (Rupees four lacs twelve thousand two 4,12,210.00
hundred ten only)
9. The Inquiry Officer however held that the charges against the
respondent stood proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the
findings of the Inquiry Officer and passed an order dated 07.08.2018
imposing a penalty of 20% cut in pension for a period of 10 years.
10. A perusal of the article of charge itself shows firstly, that there
is no allegation that the respondent was herself directly responsible for
non-deposit of water charges collected by the Beldar/Meter Reader;
secondly, that the record also shows that the major amount out of the
total sum that the Beldar/Meter Reader had failed to deposit had been
collected by him at a time when the respondent was not ZRO ; and
that only a small sum of Rs.25,000/- had been collected by the
Beldar/Meter Reader during the tenure of the respondent.
11. Be that as it may, after taking-over as ZRO, it is evident that the
respondent took concrete steps, including issuing charge memos, to
the Beldar/Meter Reader and to the Head Clerk, to ensure that the
amounts collected were deposited with the department. It was as a
result of the respondent's efforts that all such amounts came to be
deposited with the department. The contention raised on behalf of the
petitioners that since the respondent was ZRO, it was her
responsibility to ensure and persuade the Meter Reader to deposit the
W.P.(C) 12850/2019 page 4 of 5
moneys collected, which she failed to do, appears to be misplaced,
inasmuch as the record shows that the respondent did indeed take
requisite steps to get the Meter Reader to deposit the monies owed to
the department. As recorded above, to this end the respondent issued
two charge memos to the Meter Reader and two charge memos to the
Head Clerk, which eventually persuaded the Meter Reader to pay-
back/deposit the amounts wrongfully withheld.
12. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the
order passed by the Tribunal. No ground is therefore made-out to
interfere with the impugned order by way of the present petition.
13. The writ petition and the application are accordingly dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
DECEMBER 17, 2019
j
W.P.(C) 12850/2019 page 5 of 5
