ORDER

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

As the issues involved in both the aforesaid OAs are same, based on the same grounds and the reliefs are also identical, therefore, with the consent of learned counsels of both the parties in both the above captioned OAs, we proceed to dispose of these two cases by this common Order.

OA No.3377/2022

2. By filing the above mentioned OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"8.1 Quash and set aside the impugned charge memorandum dated 24.08.2022 at Annexure A-1 and the impugned order dated 2.11.2022 at Annexure A-2 and direct the respondents to drop the illegal Disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and grant all Consequential benefits, withheld or affected on account of issuance of chargesheet.

8.2 Any other relief that the Ld. Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

OA No.2508/2023

3. By filing the above mentioned OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

" a) Quash and set aside the impugned charge memorandum dated 24.08.2022 atAnnexureA-1 and the impugned office order dated 02.11.2022 at Annexure A-2 and direct the respondents to drop the illegal Disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.

b) Pass any other order or orders as deemed fit in the circumstance of the case. "

4. For the sake of convenience in writing of this common Order, OA No.3377/2022 is taken as a lead case.

FACTS IN BRIEF

5. The facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that the applicant was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in 1989 and, over the years, earned successive promotions and ultimately reached to the rank of Deputy Director in 2016.

5.1 In connection with the allotment of a shop in the North Area, the applicant signed the allotment letter dated 05.04.2017. The said allotment letter was duly approved by the Commissioner on 27.04.2017. However, on 10.02.2020, the applicant was issued a Memorandum/show cause notice in respect of the allotment of a shop at Hudson Lane. The applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 03.03.2020 in response to the said Memorandum dated 10.02.2020, explaining the facts and praying for closure of the case.

5.2 The learned Special Judge, CBI-13, while considering the closure report filed by the CBI in FIR dated 25.02.2021, accepted the same with specific observations that no misconduct could be attributed to any person and that there was no element of undue advantage extended to the allottee, Mr. Khosla, vide order dated 03.03.2020.

5.3 The applicant brought the aforesaid order of the learned Special Judge on the closure report to the notice of the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor (Chairman, DDA) on 03.03.2020, as the respondents had failed to do so.

5.4 Despite the above judicial findings, a major penalty charge sheet was issued to the applicant under Regulation 25 of the DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999 on 24.08.2022, containing seven Articles of Charge, all of which had already been negated by the learned Special Judge, CBI, in the order accepting the closure report.

5.5 The applicant submitted a representation dated 15.09.2022 seeking dropping of the disciplinary inquiry, pointing out that CVC first- stage advice had been sought without apprising the CVC of the closure report and without supplying a copy of the said CVC advice to him. However, on 02.11.2022, without passing any order on the applicant’s aforesaid representation dated 15.09.2022 and without affording th