Dismissal without inquiry is permissible under special circumstances, such as severe misconduct that creates a threatening atmosphere, justifying action under applicable regulations.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. The petition impugns the order dated 29th March, 2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi of dismissal of OA No.2227/2016 preferred by the petitioner. The said OA was preferred by the petitioner, impugning (a) the order dated 30th April, 2015 of the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA), in exercise of powers under Regulation 30(2) of the DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999, of dispensing with the conduct of enquiry for imposing penalty and of imposing the penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect, under Regulation 23(j), with no consequential benefits on the petitioner; and, (b) the order dated 14th September, 2015 of the Appellate Authority of the respondent DDA of dismissal of the departmental appeal preferred thereagainst.

2. When this writ petition came up first before this Court on 30th July, 2019, on the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had rendered 32 years of service and the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate and had the effect of forfeiture of past service and retirement benefits and that the petitioner was willing to accept the punishment of compulsory retirement instead of the punishment of dismissal from service, notice of the petition was ordered to be issued.

3. The counsel for the respondent DDA, under instructions, states that the respondent DDA, considering the past conduct and behaviour of the petitioner, particularly of involvement in illegal instances, disorderly and indecent behaviour, within the premises of the respondent DDA and also outside such premises, with the senior officers, is not willing to reduce the penalty of dismissal from service, to that of compulsory retirement.

4. Though notice of this petition was issued only on the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the petitioner and not otherwise finding any prima facie merit in the petition, but be that as it may, we have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent.

5. The reason why the petitioner, without any inquiry was inflicted upon the punishment of dismissal from service, can be culled out from the order dated 14th September, 2015 of the Appellate Authority as under:

"4. Whereas the appellate authority having read the provisions of the above Regulations, consider all these aspects ad seriatim. It has been observed that the Regulation 30 of the said Regulations is the Special Procedure in certain cases in which it is not mandatory for the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry. However, the Disciplinary Authority has to satisfy himself for the reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in the Regulations. Since the penalty has been imposed by invoking this provision, all the facts leading to such decision of the Disciplinary Authority have been perused which are recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and which are available in record.

5. It has been observed that Director (Hort) NW vide his note dated 23.04.2015 marked to EM/VC has stated the details of the incidents and the criminal activities committed by the official in the past and present to the effect that he was threatened to kill by Shri Bhopal Singh and was mishandled and misbehaved as Sh. Bhopal Singh entered