The main legal point established is the competency of the Member (Administration) of DUSIB to issue show cause notices under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and the determination of the employment status of the petitioners.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

CM No.17403/2017 (for condonation of delay in filing the short affidavit)in W.P.(C) 4553/2016

This is an application filed by the respondent seeking condonation of 4 days delay in filing the short affidavit. As I note, reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner and Mr. Lohia has no objection in taking the same on record, the application is allowed. The short affidavit is taken on record.

Application stands disposed of.

CM No. 17402/2017 (for condonation of delay in filing the short affidavit) in W.P.(C) 5152/2016

This is an application filed by the respondent seeking condonation of 4 days delay in filing the short affidavit.

As the learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection, the delay of 4 days in filing the short affidavit is condoned. The short affidavit is taken on record.

Application stands disposed of.

CM No.7579/2017 in W.P.(C) 4553/2016

This is an application on behalf of the petitioners seeking extension of time to file reply to the short affidavit filed by the respondent. As reply affidavit to the short affidavit filed by the respondent was filed by the petitioner in the registry on July 15, 2017 (Saturday) and the same was not on record, it has been called for and taken on record, as such the present application has become infructuous. The same is disposed of as such.

W.P.(C) Nos. 4553/2016 & 5152/2016

1. As an identical issue arises for consideration in these writ petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the show cause notices dated January 7, 2016, which have been issued by the Member (Administration) of the respondent-Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (‘DUSIB’, in short) under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, calling upon the petitioners, on their conviction in FIR No. 35/2008, under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code,1860 by the Special Judge, ACB, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to show cause, why penalty of removal, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment, be not imposed on them.

3. On the receipt of show cause notices, the petitioners have submitted their replies on February 29, 2016. It has been pointed out by Mr. Lohia and Mr. Bishwajeet Swain, learned counsel’s appearing for the petitioners, that in their replies sent to the respondent-DUSIB, the petitioners have averred that the show cause notices under replies are technically wrong as the judgment dated September 28, 2012 of learned Special Judge, ACB has not been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority. It is at the show cause notice stage, the present petitions have been filed. In the writ petitions, insofar as the competency of the Authority to issue the impugned show cause notices under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is concerned, the averments as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners are in para “D” (in Writ Petition No. 4553/2016) and para “(b)” (in Writ Petition No. 5152/2016), of the “Grounds” which reads as under:

“D. ......In the present case, the competent “appointing” authority was the then Commissioner (Slum & JJ Wing) (the now CEO, DUSIB) which appointed the petitioner in 1987 and the present impugned show cause notice is being issued by Member (Admn.).

XXX XXX XXX

(b) .....In the present case, the competent appointing authority to remove the petitioner is the CEO of Slum & JJ Wing, who appointed the petitioner in 1989 and the impugned show cause notices are being issued by the Member (Admin) who is neither the competent authority nor equivalent to the appointing authority, therefore, the impugned show cause notices are totally illegal and malafide in the eyes of law”.

Mr. Lohia clarifies, it is not the Commissioner (Slum & JJ Wing), but the Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority (DDA), who is competent. In support of his contention, Mr. Lohia states, the petitioners were appointed in the DDA b