Disciplinary proceedings can be initiated post-acquittal; however, undue delays must be justified, particularly when considering the employee's circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher J. (Oral)

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

CM No.21818/2021

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

CM No.21817/2021

2. The prayer made in the captioned application is to grant exemption from filing notarized affidavits.

2.1. The captioned application is disposed with the direction to the applicant/petitioner to file duly notarized affidavits, within three days of this Court resuming its normal and usual work pattern.

W.P.(C) 6907/2021 & CM No.21816/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking stay on the operation of the impugned order and disciplinary proceedings]

3. Issue notice. Mr. R.V. Sinha accepts notice on behalf of the respondent i.e., North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC).

3.1. Mr. Sinha says that, in view of the order that we intend to pass, he does not wish to file a reply, and will argue the matter based on the record available with the Court.

4. Thus, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.

4.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.07.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short `the Tribunal') in O.A. No.96/2021.

5. For the purposes of adjudicating upon the writ petition, the following broad facts are required to be noticed.

5.1. The petitioner is employed as an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the NDMC.

5.2. It appears that an FIR was registered against the petitioner, on 03.09.2012. The allegation made against the petitioner was, that he had committed offences under Section 7 /13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5.3. Because of the FIR being registered, the petitioner was suspended from service. However, on 10.03.2014, the order concerning suspension was withdrawn, and the petitioner was reinstated.

5.4. Insofar as the criminal proceeding was concerned, it culminated in the petitioner's acquittal. A judgment, to that effect, was delivered by the concerned trial court on 15.12.2018.

5.5. It is, thereafter, i.e., on 28.10.2020, that a charge memo was served on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. The allegation levelled against the petitioner was that, in 2012, he had received illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- from one Mr. Mirja Tahir, for abjuring from sealing his shop.

6. Mr. Shashank Mangal, who appears for the petitioner, says that, the Tribunal has failed to notice that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, after a delay, of almost eight and half years.

6.1. Furthermore, Mr. Shashank says that, the disciplinary authority, while issuing the charge memo failed to apply its mind to the fact that the allegation levelled therein, against the petitioner, was no different from what was stated in the aforementioned FIR. It is Mr. Shashank's submission that, the disciplinary authority, before initiating the disciplinary proceedings, should have examined as to what had emerged, which was not captured in the criminal proceedings, launched against the petitioner.

6.2. Mr. Shashank says that, the tribunal also failed to notice the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (in short 'RPWD Act').

7. On the other hand, Mr. Sinha says that there is no bar in disciplinary proceedings being initiated against an employee even if he is acquitted in the criminal proceedings.

7.1. Mr. Sinha also contends that, the delay, in commencing the disciplinary proceedings, by itself, cannot be the reason for quashing the same.

7.2. Insofar as the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the RPWD Act are concerned, Mr. Sin