SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (Oral)

1. The respondent, Shri H.C. Singhal, while functioning as Zonal Engineer (Building) in the City Zone of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi from 16.12.1981 to 23.4.1983 was alleged to have committed gross misconduct and failed to maintain devotion to duty and absolute integrity on account of delay in dealing with unauthorized construction of a commercial complex in Chandni Chowk and failing to comply with instructions from superior authorities resulting in framing of charges against him and a departmental inquiry being held. This departmental inquiry found the respondent guilty and an Office Order dated 16.2.1993 was issued by the disciplinary authority after giving opportunity to the respondent upholding the finding of the inquiry and imposing penalty of dismissal from service about fifteen (15) days prior to the date of retirement of the respondent. The order of the disciplinary authority was affirmed by the appellate authority (Lieutenant Governor) vide order dated 18.4.1994.

2. The respondent aggrieved by this order of dismissal from service filed a writ petition before this Court, being CWP No.3056/1994. Only a limited notice to show cause was issued in that writ petition on the question as to whether the respondent had been dismissed by an authority who is subordinate to the authority who had appointed the respondent. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 23.2.1995 with a long speaking order. We may notice that the last line of the order says that the petition is ‘dismissed in limine’, which implies that the petition was not admitted. The petitioner aggrieved by this order preferred a Special Leave Petition No.12903/1995 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on 12.7.1995.

3. A second round began thereafter as the petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the President of India against the order of the disciplinary/appellate authority. This Revision Petition was found not to be maintainable and this was communicated to the respondent on 10.6.1999 while simultaneously informing him that a Review Petition could be filed for consideration of the Lieutenant Governor under the DMC Services (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1959. The petitioner thereafter filed a Review Petition before the Lieutenant Governor on 27.10.1999, which was rejected vide order dated 27.4.2000. The said order notes the pleas raised by the respondent that the fault was of the Junior Engineer, who was subordinate to him in not moving the file expeditiously as also his grievance about lack of reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the factum of three other officers being awarded minor penalties while the petitioner had been awarded the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. The Lieutenant Governor has noticed that there were no infirmities in the conduct of the inquiry proceedings and due procedure was followed in awarding the punishment and all issues had been dealt with.

4. The respondent thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court, being WP (C) No.5205/2000, once again making the same prayer as made in the earlier writ petition, i.e. quashing the order of dismissal from service and the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal. This writ petition was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘CAT’) in view of transfer of jurisdiction and vide impugned order dated 19.2.2010, the petition has been allowed. The order of the CAT is now sought to be challenged by the petitioner/MCD in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. It is seen from the impugned order that the CAT has, once again, gone into the inquiry report and found that the punishment imposed was harsh and that others have been let off with minor penalties. The penalty of dismissal from service has been modified to that of compulsory retirement directing the petitioner to disburse all retiral dues to the respondent.

6. We have heard learned counse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document