JUDGMENT :

Vipin Sanghi, J.

The instant writ petition preferred by North Delhi Municipal Corporation in short 'NrDMC', and, its Commissioner, assailing the judgment dated 07.08.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, in short 'CAT', in O.A. No. 4466/2011 raises an important question of law as to who is the competent authority to take disciplinary actions and impose penalties on the municipal officers and other municipal employees under The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 in short 'the Act', post its amendment by The Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1993 (Act 67 of 1993). This question of law was sought to be agitated before the Supreme Court in Appeal (Crl.) Nos.7932- 7933/2012 CBI vs. G.S. Matharoo, arising from the judgment of a ld. Single Judge of this Court in G.S. Matharoo Vs. CBI, Crl.M.C. No.2695/2010 decided on 25.01.2012, but the Supreme Court dismissed the said appeals in limine on 26.08.2014, keeping all questions of law open. The impugned judgment of CAT is squarely founded on G.S. Matharoo (supra) decided by the learned Single Judge.

2. Before we proceed to answer the question of law, it would be appropriate to advert to the relevant facts giving rise to filing of the OA by the respondent-Rajesh Sharma, and the passing of the impugned order by CAT. The respondent was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in the year 1978 and, in due course, given appointments to the higher posts on promotions. On 09.01.1997, he was appointed as Executive Engineer (Civil) on the recommendation of the DPC in consultation with UPSC. It emerges from the record that during this period, he, alongwith one S.B. Bhardwaj, Asstt. Engineer, was convicted on 15.07.2011 for the commission of the offences under Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in short 'PoC Act', and, under Secs. 420 and 120B IPC. Both of them were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years with fine of Rs.40,000/- each under Sec. 13(1)(d) of PoC Act; one year for offence under Sec. 420 IPC with a fine of Rs.30,000/- each; and, one and a half year for the offence under Sec.120B with a fine of Rs.30,000/- each.

3. On the receipt of such information from Addl. Commissioner (Police), AC Branch, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Commissioner, vide his order No.2643/SIO(P)/Vig./ACB/ 2001/ D-62 dated 15.11.11, imposed penalty of dismissal from service upon the respondent by invoking the provisions of Regulation 9(i) of the DMC Services (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1959, in short 'the Regulations 1959' read with Sec. 95(2)(a) of the Act. There-against, the respondent preferred the Original Application before CAT. In the OA so filed, the respondent averred that he was promoted as Executive Engineer in the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500-pursuant to the recommendation of UPSC on 09.01.1997. He submitted that he was a Group 'A' officer with Grade Pay of Rs.6600/-. He averred that the competent authority to take disciplinary action against him was the Corporation, and not the Commissioner and, therefore, the dismissal order dated 15.11.2011 was not sustainable in law. In support of his plea, the respondent adverted to the Schedule relatable to Regulation 7 of the Regulations, 1959. The CAT held that the question of competence of the Commissioner-or rather the lack of it, to act as the Disciplinary Authority in respect of Group "A" officers of the Corporation was no more res integra, in view of the ratio of the judgment in G.S. Matharoo (supra) and, therefore, quashed the dismissal order dated 15.11.2011. The petitioner NrDMC has thus approached this Court assailing the impugned order passed by CAT.

4. The challenge made to the impugned order of the CAT, primarily, proceeds on two counts. Firstly, that CAT failed to take note of the fact that the Commissioner was the Appointing Authority of the respondent, and, therefore, he h