Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2530
High Court of Delhi
S. RAVINDRA BHAT & VIPIN SANGHI, JJ.
Mahavir Singh
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
W.P. (C) No. 5258 of 2013
Decided On : 01-12-2014
For the Petitioner:C. Mohan Rao, Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Pallavi, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Arun Birbal, Sanjay Singh, Advocates.
The absence of evidence and standard operating procedures within the organization can impact the validity of disciplinary proceedings and influence the court's decision.
Headnote:
Integrity - Disciplinary Proceedings - CCS Conduct Rules - Rule 31(1)(11) and (111) - 23.01.1985 - 10.10.2012 - The court discussed the relevant dates and the petitioner's actions in relation to the charge. The court highlighted the absence of evidence and standard operating procedures within the organization, ultimately leading to the quashing of the disciplinary orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk, was charged with not keeping track of a file and not taking action for recovery of outstanding premium, resulting in financial loss to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The charge was initially held to be established, leading to a penalty. The petitioner challenged the orders in writ proceedings, claiming missing notings on the file and lack of evidence consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, and the Tribunal had overlooked crucial evidence and aspects of the case, leading to the quashing of the disciplinary orders. The petitioner's contentions regarding missing notings and absence of standard operating procedures were upheld.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged lack of integrity and failure to fulfill duty, the consideration of evidence and standard operating procedures, and the impact of these factors on the disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the absence of evidence to support the charge, the lack of standard operating procedures within the organization, and the petitioner's contentions regarding missing notings on the file.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the disciplinary orders, and directed the respondent to re-fix the petitioner's pay and release arrears.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. The petitioner, who was the original applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/Tribunal) in O.A. No. 1137 of 2011 assails the order dated 10.10.2012, whereby the said Original Application was dismissed.
2. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA). He was issued a charge-sheet leveling the following charge:
“While functioning as UDC in LSB (R) in 1985 Shri Mahavir Singh handed over file No. F.4(1) 85 LSB (R) to Shri A.K. Malhotra, Stenographer, then working in Chief Architect’s office without any proper requisition from Shri Malhotra or the Architect on whose behalf the file was purported to be collected. This file pertained to auction/ purchase of plot No. B-7/112-A Extn., Safdurjung Residential Scheme, purchased by Smt. Usha Gupta and Shri Girish Gupta. After the file was handed over to Shri A.K. Malhotra, Shri Mahavir Singh did not keep tack of the file and no action was taken by him for recovery of the outstanding premium of Rs.5,10,011/- from the party till February, 1987. DDA suffered a financial loss.
By his above act, Shri Mahavir, UDC displayed lack of absolute integrity and lack of absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an Authority’s servant. He thereby contravened Rule 31(1)(11) and (111) of CCS Conduct Rules as made applicable to the employees of DDA.”
3. So far as the first part of the charge is concerned, i.e. with regard to the handing over of the file aforesaid to Sh. A.K. Malhotra, Stenographer working in the Office of Chief Architect without proper requisition, is concerned, the same was not eventually proved.
4. The dispute is with regard to the inquiry and punishment pertaining to the second part of the charge. At this stage, we may take note of the few relevant dates. An auction was held in respect of Building No. B-7/112-A Extension, Safdarjung Residential Scheme on 23.01.1985. The highest bid was by Smt. Usha Gupta & Sh. Girish Gupta (bidder). The 25% of the bid amount was deposited by the bidder initially. On 02.05.1985, the DDA issued the demand letter in respect of the remaining 75% of the bid amount. It appears that the same was received back undelivered. The petitioner claimed that the demand letter was again sent through Process Server on 05.06.1985. Service of the same could not be confirmed. The bidder, it appears, did not make the payment within the time granted. On 15.05.1985, the petitioner initiated action on the relevant file for taking action against the bidder, namely, cancellation of the allotment. On 16.09.1985, the said proposal was approved. The petitioner claimed that he re-submitted the files three times on 08.08.1985, 29.08.1985 & 30.09.1985, and submitted the case for cancellation of the allotment.
5. In the departmental inquiry, the second part of the charge was that the petitioner did not keep a track of the aforesaid file, and no action was taken by him for recovery of the outstanding premium of Rs.5,10,011/- from the bidder till February 1987. This charge was held to have been established, and consequently, he was subjected to the penalty of reduction to the minimum of the existing grade for a period of three years with cumulative effect vide order dated 22.03.1999. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 23.08.1999.
6. The petitioner approached this Court in writ proceedings to assail the said orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The case set up by the petitioner in those proceedings was that the file of the aforesaid plot was called by the Chief Architect and that after he had sent the file to the Chief Architect, he was transferred from the concerned branch sometime in February 1987. He claimed that, in the disciplinary proceedings, his stand was that some pages of the notings and correspondence side of the file were missing. He claimed that the fact regard
