W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 1 of 22

#

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 05.07.2023

Judgment delivered on: 04.08.2023

+

W.P.(C) 4802/2023 & CM APPL. 18515/2023

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel

with Mr. Gaganmeet Singh Sachdeva

and Mr. Nihal Singh, Advocates and

Mr. Akshay Kumar, Asstt. Director

(P) (I), Mr. Rajvir, M.T.S., CL/

Branch, DDA.

Versus

SANJAY KUMAR

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate

with respondent in-person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

J U D G M E N T

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

1. The challenge by way of this writ petition is to an order dated October

27, 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred

to as „Tribunal‟) in O.A.No. 2464/2021, whereby the Tribunal quashed the

articles of charge, the report of Inquiry Officer, the order of the Disciplinary

Authority and Appellate Authority apropos penalty imposed on the

Digitally Signed

By:DINESH CHANDRA

Signing Date:04.08.2023

16:23:17

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 2 of 22

respondent in following terms:-

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

2. In brief, as per the case of the petitioner/Delhi Development Authority

(hereinafter referred to as „DDA‟), a piece of land was allotted to Badarpur

Traders Union (BTU) by Delhi Administration for a period of one year from

June 23, 1967 to June 22, 1968. The land was placed at the disposal of DDA

vide notification dated January 03, 1968 under Section 21 of the Delhi

Development Authority Act, 1957. A show-cause notice dated June 24,

1971 was served upon BTU by the Estate Officer, DDA and subsequently

DDA demolished and removed the encroachments from the said land on

August 02, 2001.

Appeal preferred by BTU before learned ADJ was allowed vide order

dated September 22, 2001 thereby setting aside the order passed by the

Digitally Signed

By:DINESH CHANDRA

Signing Date:04.08.2023

16:23:17

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 3 of 22

Estate Officer. A writ petition bearing No.7312/2005 was preferred by DDA

before the High Court challenging the order passed by learned ADJ, wherein

in the proceedings conducted on July 19, 2018, BTU submitted before the

High Court that the writ petition had become infructuous, since DDA had

executed a lease in favour of BTU. However, stand was taken on behalf of

DDA that the lease deed which had been executed and registered, was not

approved by DDA and was void/contrary to the statute. Pursuant to the

same, High Court directed DDA to file a detailed affidavit explaining the

circumstances in which the lease deed had been executed, identifying the

official responsible for the same and the action which the Vice Chairman

(VC) proposed to take in this regard.

3. It is further the case of DDA that pursuant to the aforesaid directions,

a committee was constituted by Vice Chairman, DDA on August 08, 2018 to

examine the mater. Shri Sanjay Kumar/respondent herein, who was then a

Senior Law Officer (SLO) was issued a memo on September 05, 2018 vide

which it was communicated that the committee which had been constituted

had found some lapses, in not referring the file by the SLO to the CLA

(Chief Legal Advisor) and handling the same himself in the absence of CLA.

In the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent, the

statement of imputation of misconduct in support of Articles of Charge was