Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
C.P. Singh - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board - Respondent
W.P.(C) 5520 of 2012
Decided On : 22-07-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of disciplinary proceedings (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 2. petitioner's contentions against penalty (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 3. court's analysis on penalty and natural justice violations (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 4. judgment on setting aside penalty (Para 39 , 40) |
| 5. final conclusion and directives (Para 41 , 42) |
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"a) Set aside the penalty order dated 27.07.2012 and the Disagreement Note dated 19.01.2012 as well as the entire disciplinary proceedings;
b) Grant all consequent benefits to the petitioner including his consideration for promotion on the available vacant post of Superintending Engineer as well as grant of MACP with all arrears..."
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter "MCD") on 1st October, 1981 and by virtue of his good performance, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer on 6th August, 1996 and 11th December, 2007, respectively.
3. Vide Resolution bearing no.293, the MCD with an object to earn revenue, began utilizing the vacant land at their district centers for booking purposes, to allow people to hold social functions.
4. With regard to the aforesaid resolution, Office of the Chief Engineer (Slum) vide order dated 27th September 2000, issued terms and conditions for temporary use of ground at West District Centre at Raja Garden, for booking of the vacant land for social purposes. The booking could be made for a particular period for which charges were claimed by the MCD. As per Condition No. 8 of the said Resolution, if the ground is not vacated on stipulated date, the security amount gets forfeited.
5. The petitioner was working as Executive Engineer in Slum and J.J. Department of MCD in the year 2008 and was also supervising his subordinate officers regarding bookings in the West District Centre at Raja Garden.
6. From 17th October 2000 to 19th October 2000, the ground was booked by Rajasthan Club, for organizing Diwali Mela. After the booking period was over, a vigilance spot inspection was conducted on 24th October 2008 and the ground was found to be still occupied. On 6th November, 2008, another investigation was conducted by the Special Cell and there still was unauthorized occupancy, without any booking.
7. After the aforesaid investigation was conducted, the petitioner was called to give explanation regarding the unauthorized occupancy. The petitioner explained to the higher authorities that there was indeed unauthorized occupancy of the said ground but no function was being organized by Rajasthan Club. The problem was that the erected structure of the occupant was still present at the ground, and the process of dismantling the said structure was going on.
8. The petitioner further took the decision to forfeit the security amount. It was also indicated from records that the approval for forfeiting the security was also recommended by the petitioner himself.
9. The Disciplinary Authority decided to proceed against the petitioner for misconduct, however, subsequently on the suggestion of the Chief Vigilance Officer (hereinafter referred to as `CVO'), the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were dropped by the Commissioner and opinion from the Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to as `CVC') was sought.
10. It is the case of the petitioner that the CVC advised at first stage to initiate major penalty proceedings against the petitioner and other subordinates on 25th August 2009.
11. Thereafter, on 20th April, 2010, a major penalty charge-sheet under Delhi Municipal Corporation (Discipline &Appeal) Regulations, 1959 was issued agai
The disciplinary authority must independently assess penalties without undue influence from external advice, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.
Point of Law : It would not be safe to rely on the examination-in-chief recorded which was not subjected to cross examination before the summon was made.
Disciplinary Authority must consider charged officer's representation against disagreement with inquiry report under CCS(CCA) Rule 15(2A); ignoring it vitiates penalty order.
Disciplinary proceedings initiated post-CBI investigation adhered to due process, and courts cannot re-evaluate evidence unless findings are perverse; the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to de....
Whenever disciplinary authority disagrees with inquiry authority then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement.
Disciplinary Authorities must provide compelling reasons for diverging from an Inquiry Officer's findings and uphold principles of natural justice, ensuring fair opportunity for representation.
The advice of the Central Vigilance Commission is not binding on disciplinary authorities, and premature interventions in disciplinary processes without a charge-sheet lack a valid cause of action.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
