Back
1997 Supreme(Del) 992
High Court Of Delhi
MANGAT RAM - Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
Civil 4600 of 1997
Decided On : 12/10/1997
ANSUYA SALVAN, Rakesh Khanna
Unexplained delay in initiating departmental proceedings vitiates the proceedings and violates the delinquent's right to defense.
Headnote:
DELAY IN INITIATING DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - QUASHING OF CHARGE SHEETS - UNEXPLAINED DELAY - PREJUDICE TO THE DELINQUENT - RIGHT TO DEFENCE - RE-CONSIDERATION OF PROMOTION CASE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Junior Engineer in DDA, was promoted to Assistant Engineer and then to Executive Engineer. He officiated as XEN DD-II till 3.2.83. He was served with four charge sheets in 1990, 1993, and 1997 pertaining to alleged irregularities in the construction of houses and development of land during his tenure as XEN DD-II. The DPC, which met in 1990, 1993, and 1994, kept the result of the petitioner's promotion in a sealed cover due to the pending departmental proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the DDA took the matter casually and did not take any action to issue charge sheets or start departmental proceedings for 7 to 10 years after the alleged irregularities were reported. The court held that the delay was unexplained and unjustified, and that the DDA was not vigilant in pursuing the matter. The court also found that the petitioner would be prejudiced if the departmental proceedings were allowed to proceed after such a long delay, as the evidence would have changed and it would be difficult for him to defend himself.
Issues: 1. Whether the unexplained delay in initiating departmental proceedings vitiates the proceedings? 2. Whether the petitioner's right to defense is violated due to the delay? 3. Whether the DPC's decision to keep the petitioner's promotion result in a sealed cover due to pending departmental proceedings is justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that unexplained delay in initiating departmental proceedings vitiates the proceedings. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh, AIR 1990 SC 1308, which held that in the absence of any explanation or plausible explanation of delay in initiating departmental proceedings, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 2. The court held that the petitioner's right to defense was violated due to the delay. The court observed that if the departmental proceedings were allowed to proceed after such a long delay, it would cause great prejudice to the petitioner as the evidence would have changed and it would be difficult for him to defend himself. 3. The court held that the DPC's decision to keep the petitioner's promotion result in a sealed cover due to pending departmental proceedings was not justified. The court observed that the DPC had graded the petitioner "good" but declared him "unfit" for promotion, which was contradictory. The court directed the DDA to re-consider the petitioner's case for promotion for the period November 1990.
Final Decision: The court quashed the charge sheets and the departmental proceedings against the petitioner. The court also directed the DDA to re-consider the petitioner's case for promotion for the period November 1990.
( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the Delhi Development Authority (in short DDA) in Oct. , 1969. He was promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineer and subsequently in Nov. , 1980 as Executive Engineer. He officiated as XEN DD-II (now N. D. 7) till 3. 2. 83. He handed over the charge of the said Division DD-II to Shri M. C. Behl on 4. 2. 83. On 6. 11. 90 petitioner was served with the charge sheet pertaining to the construction of 480 LIG houses at Pocket n (Poorvi) at Pitam Pura. It was alleged that on 14. 2. 81 Quality Control Cell of DDA inspected the site and found certain irregularities in the construction of those houses. The Technical Examiner of the GTE Organisation again examined the work and matter was referred to the Director Vigilance by the Chief T. E. for investigation on 30. 11. 83. Certain lapses and irregularities in the execution of work were alleged. Another charge-sheet was issued on 26. 12. 90 in respect of construction of 926 Janta Houses at Pocket b (Poorvi) Pitam Pura. Third charge-sheet was issued on 25. 6. 93 regarding the development of the land Zone H-5 (Pt.) Pitampura SH Sewerage in Phase-11 (Balance Work ). The allegation was that in the work which was carried out by the petitioner in 1982 83 some irregularities were found and that the work was found to be substandard on quality control inspection. Yet another charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 8. 7. 97 pertaining to the work done in 1980-83 relating to the development of land near Wazirpur Village for residential colony, Phase-III. Because of these charge sheets and pendency of the departmental proceedings, the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short DPC) which met in Nov. 1990, again in Sept. 1993 and Dec. 1993 respectively considered the case of the petitioner for promotion but kept the result in sealed cover. The charges levelled against him and depriving him of the promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer pertains to the period of 1980-83, The charge sheets regarding the alleged irregularities have been issued after almost ten years. The Inquiry Officers appointed in each of the case have not proceeded in any of the case till date thereby depriving the petitioner of his chances of promotion. Since charge sheets have been issued after a lapse of 7 to 10 years and the Inquiry Officer have not proceeded with the enquiry till date, hence charge sheets are liable to be quashed and he be promoted to the rank of S. E. which promotion was illegally deprived.
( 2 ) RESPONDENT tried to explain away the delay by submitting that the first charge-sheet which was issued on 1st/6th Nov. 1990 could not have been issued earlier because the record relating to that work including the measurement books were not available. The measurement books were lying with one Mr. U. P. Sharma. He was under suspension and absconding. Police report was lodged against him. The record was partly received in April-May, 1986. Therefore the case was investigated and handed over to the S. E. for comments who gave same in Dec. 1987. The Vice Chairman after considering the entire case ordered major penalty proceedings and also referred the case to the Chief Vigilance Commission (in short CVC) for advice. The advice from CVC was received on 19. 7. 89. Accordingly charge-sheet was issued on 6. 11. 90. The I. O. was appointed in Oct. , 1991. Since that I. O. was not available another I. O. was appointed in Nov. 1992 and was subsequently changed in July, 1993. The enquiry is pending.
( 3 ) AS regards second charge-sheet the respondent tried to explain the delay by saying that the Vice Chairman noted a news item in Indian Express that some houses in Pitam Pura were inspected and the matter had been referred to me C. B. R. I, for advice. The said C. B. R. I. gave damaging report about the foundation of the walls. On reading that report, the Vice Chairman got the matter investigated through the Engineer Member, DDA. Thereafter one
