SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Del) 405

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
D. P. LALWANI – Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.M.HOODA, VINAY SABHARWAL

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA

( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 28. 2. 1992 issued by the respondents to the petitioner. The charges relate to the period during the years 1982-83 while the petitioner was serving as a Junior Engineer, Construction Division no. 1, DDA, Jhandewalan. It is alleged in the said chagesheet that during execution of the work of development of land in New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur and surrounding arrears, the petitioner was the Junior engineer-in-Charge and was assigned the duty of supervising the execution of the said work. It is alleged that the work done was examined by CTE s organisation In 1988 and found not only deficiencies in the work but also found that the work was carried out contrary to the sanctioned plan. It is alleged in the writ petition that the charges in respect of which the aforesaid chargesheet was issued , relate to the period during 1982-83 and, therefore, there is inordinate delay in serving the memo of charges, for which there is no acceptable explanation, which itself Is a ground of quashing of the charges.

( 2 ) A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent. It is stated in the counter af








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top