Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. Sistani,Anup Jairam Bhambhani, JJ.
North Delhi Municipal Corporation - Appellant
Vs.
Vinod Bansal - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 634 of 2017
Decided On: 16-09-2019
Kartik Jindal, Adv., M.K. Bhardwaj, Adv., Shubham Gairola, Adv.
The judgment emphasizes the limitations of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution and the scope of interference in the proceedings.
Headnote:
Negligence - Central Administrative Tribunal Order - Building Department, City Zone - Municipal Corporation of Delhi Act, 1957, Section 345 - The court discussed the unauthorized construction carried out at a property and the actions taken by the respondent. The court considered the scope of interference in the proceedings and the limitations of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court found no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Junior Engineer, noticed unauthorized construction at a property and took actions leading to the sealing of the property. Subsequently, the respondent was found guilty of negligence and penalized by the Disciplinary Authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the actions of the respondent in relation to the unauthorized construction at the property and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limitations of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution and the scope of interference in the proceedings. It also considered the actions taken by the respondent in relation to the unauthorized construction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims.
JUDGMENT :
G.S.Sistani, J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal') by which the OA filed by the respondent herein stands allowed.
2. Before considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to note some necessary facts which gave rise to the filing of the OA. At the relevant time the respondent was working as a Junior Engineer (JE) in the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In October 2007, he was posted in the Building Department, City Zone, where he was placed in-charge of the Maliwara area w.e.f 24.10.2007.
3. It is the case of the respondent that he noticed certain unauthorized construction being carried-out at property bearing No. 1419, Gali Kishan Dutt, Maliwara, Delhi. The respondent visited the said property on 30.10.2007 alongwith the vigilance team, when it was confirmed that unauthorized construction was being carried-out.
4. It also transpires that the owner of the said property had earlier filed suit No. 3010/2007 for restraining the petitioner/MCD from interfering with the renovation work in the said property. The vigilance team and the respondent reached a conclusion that under the scope of renovation, the property owner was carrying-out unauthorized construction. Consequently, the property was sealed on 16.11.2007 by the MCD.
5. An appeal was filed by the owner before the Appellate Tribunal MCD challenging the sealing action which was allowed and the property was desealed on 04.02.2008. The said property was re-sealed again on 18.02.2008, after it was noticed that the owner was trying to develop the property into a commercial complex. The owner yet again approached the ATMCD ; and by order dated 22.08.2008, the property was ordered to be de-sealed.
6. Subsequently, charge-sheet dated 16.03.2009 was issued to the respondent by the petitioner. Reply to the charge-sheet was filed. Not satisfied with the reply, Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated ; an Enquiry Officer was appointed ; and the respondent participated in the enquiry. Thereupon, the respondent was found guilty.
7. Accordingly, acting on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction in pay in the present time scale of pay, by two stages, for a period of two years with cumulative effect on the respondent.
8. An appeal was filed before the Departmental Appellate Authority, being the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, who rejected the appeal vide order dated 19.10.2013 which led to the filing of the OA, in which the following reliefs were sought :
"(i) To quash and set-aside the impugned Order dated 17.08.2011/01.09.2011,19.10.2013/06.12.2013.
(b) To declare the proceedings as initiated vide charge memo dated 16.03.2009 as illegal and unjustified and released all consequential benefits to the applicant from due date. Pecuniary loss may be compensated with 12% interest per annum of the amount.
(iii) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has supported the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the order of the Disciplinary Authority. He submits that the Enquiry Officer has given a firm finding as regards negligence on the part of the respondent in not taking any action for 14 days after de-sealing the property, since by reason thereof the owner had got time to carry-out the unauthorized construction. Counsel for the petitioner is however unaware as to the present status of the property in question.
10. Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. He further submits that the Tribunal has taken into consideration that the respondent was posted at the Building Department, City Zone and was incharge of the Maliwara area only for a period of four months i.e. between 24.10.2007 to 18.02.2008 ;
