Charges issued by an incompetent authority render disciplinary proceedings void, necessitating adherence to principles of natural justice and timely resolution.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-

By way of the present OA filed u/s 19 of the AT Act, 1985, the applicant, in para 8 of the OA has prayed for the following reliefs: -

“(i) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned penalty order dated 29.04.2014 (Annex.A/1), Appellate Authority order dated 13.07.2016 (Annex.A/2), Charge Sheet dated 21.11.2002 (Annex.A/3), I.O. Report dated 12.10.2010 (Annex.A/4) and entire disciplinary proceedings declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits to the applicant including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances, back promotions, grant of financial up-gradation etc., with all benefits.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant.”

FACTS IN THE MATTER

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the applicant was initially appointed in Govt. of NCT of Delhi w.e.f. 07.06.1995 to the post of Grade-II (DASS)/ Head Clerk. A Departmental Inquiry was initiated against the applicant while he was posted in the Revenue Department in the O/o D.C. to the post of Naib Tehsildar at Hauz Khas in South District, and he was charge sheeted vide memorandum dated 21.11.2002 and the following charge was framed against him:-

“Article-I

That the said Sh. Naresh Kumar, N.T. while working as N.T. (Hauz Khas) sanctioned mutations no.3725 and 3726 both dated 19.3.99 in respect of Village Satbari on the basis of sale deed registered in Bombay.

That the said Sh. Naresh Kumar, N.T. did not verify from the vendor/objector company whether the sale deed has been affected or not and whether the possession has been delivered or not.

That the said Sh. Naresh Kumar, N.T. neither called objector company nor general attorney and special attorney to verify the truth of transaction and ordered mutation without any verification.

That the said Sh. Naresh Kumar, N.T. sanctioned mutations for the purpose of withdrawing the compensation, which clearly proves that while sanctioning mutations, the said Sh. Naresh Kumar, N.T. was aware of the fact that the land is an acquired land.

That the said Sh. Naresh Kumar, N.T. did not follow the correct and fair procedure of sanctioning mutation and had he followed/adopted the correct procedure, he would have known the validity of the sale-deed which was fraudulent and forged and forgery would have been detected while processing the case of sanctioning of mutation and thereby illegal mutation could have been avoided.

That the said Shri Naresh Kumar, N.T. sanctioned mutations on the basis of sale deeds registered in Bombay by the parties misusing Section 30(2) of Indian Registration Act, 1908 which otherwise could not have been possible in Delhi due to violations inter-alia of (a) section 33 of DLR Act, (b) transfer of the land where bhoomidari rights have been conferred u/s 74(4) of the DLR Act to the genuine allottee of panchayat land under 20 point programme, (c) land notified u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act where transfer is prohibited under the provisions of Delhi Land (Restriction of Transfer) Act 1972 (d) land forming part of joint khata where the partition has not been affected (e) the proceedings u/s 81 are pending for vesting land in Gram Sabha for non agriculture use and thus registration has been done by circumventing the laid down procedure and violating the legal provisions.

That the said Shri Naresh Kumar, N.T., was fully aware of the fact that sale deeds have been registered in Bombay as registration of sale deed of land was not possi