Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 15489
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J
AR BELA AGRAWAL – Appellant
Versus
COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE AND ORS – Respondent
W.P.(C)-16402/2022
The suspension of an architect must adhere to principles of natural justice and proportionality, ensuring that charges are clearly communicated and substantiated.
Headnote:(A) Architects Act, 1972 - Section 30 - Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 1989 - Clauses 2(1)(x) and 2(1)(xv) - Suspension of architect for one year due to alleged plagiarism and violation of existing contracts - Petitioner contended that the suspension was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice - Disciplinary Committee initially found Petitioner guilty of one violation but Council expanded findings without notice - Court found no substantive basis for the Council's conclusions and noted procedural infirmities - The decision to suspend was deemed disproportionate and unjustified. (Paras 8-22)
(B) Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice require that a party must be informed of the charges against them and given an opportunity to respond - The Council's failure to notify the Petitioner of additional charges constituted a significant procedural infirmity. (Paras 8-9)
(C) Proportionality - The penalty imposed must be proportionate to the alleged misconduct - The Court found the one-year suspension excessive given the lack of evidence of serious professional misconduct. (Paras 17-19)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, an architect, was suspended by the Council of Architecture based on a complaint alleging plagiarism and violation of existing contracts. The Disciplinary Committee initially found her guilty of one violation but the Council later expanded the findings without prior notice.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Council's decision lacked substantive evidence and violated principles of natural justice, leading to an arbitrary suspension.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Council's findings were justified and whether the Petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity to defend herself against the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Council's expansion of findings without notice undermined the fairness of the proceedings and that the suspension was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
Result: The impugned decision was quashed.
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):
1. Bela Agrawal, the Petitioner, is an Architect by profession and is registered with Respondent No. 1 - Council of Architecture1 under the provisions of the Architects Act , 19722. Aggrieved by the decision of the Council to suspend her from practice for a period of one year, based on a complaint filed by Respondents No. 2 and 3, the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging
1 “Council”
the validity of the said suspension order. The Petitioner contends that the impugned decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, and in dereliction of the principles of natural justice. FACTS AND CONTENTIONS:
2. Mr. Srijan Sinha, counsel for the Petitioner presents the following facts and contentions which led to the filing of the present writ petition:
2.1. The Madhya Pradesh Government planned to set up a Medical Science University in Jabalpur.3 In this regard, they issued an open tender for empanelling Detailed Project Report Consultants4 for any or all projects overseen by the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department5 at Jabalpur. The Petitioner emerged as the successful bidder and was appointed as the DPR Consultant with the Project Implementation Unit, MPPWD6 for the period of one year vide Letter of Acceptance dated 1st November, 2017.
2.2. As per the scope of work defined in the tender documents, Petitioner was responsible for preparing DPRs for projects assigned to her only on the basis of the designs provided by MPPWD. One such project assigned to the Petitioner was with respect to the Medical Science University to be established in Jabalpur. She asserts that originality or creation of the designs had no relevance to her role and there was no ambiguity as to her mandate being solely to carry out the DPR analysis based on the designs provided by MPPWD, and accordingly she collected the concept design from them for the said analysis.
2.3. During the execution of her mandate, the Petitioner was contacted by
2 “ Architects Act ”
3 “Project”
4 “DPR Consultants”
5 “MPPWD”
Respondent No. 2 – Arcop Associates, who claimed that they had an existing Architectural Service Agreement dated 9th October, 2014 with MPPWD for the Medical Science University project and that the Petitioner should not have accepted the said work. In response, the Petitioner clarified that she was not the Architect for the project, but rather had merely been asked to prepare the DPR by MPPWD which she completed based on the designs provided and submitted it to the relevant authorities as per the tender awarded to her. She also clarified her lack of awareness regarding any existing agreement between MPPWD and Respondent No. 2 related to the project and requested Respondent No. 2 to refrain from unnecessary harassment.
2.4. Despite this clarification, Respondent No. 2 issued a communication alleging that the Petitioner had engaged in plagiarism and subsequently, Respondent No. 3 – the Director of Respondent No. 2 company, filed a complaint with the Council dated 21st June, 2019, alleging that the Petitioner had plagiarized their architectural designs for the project and presented them as her own work. Additionally, Respondent No. 3 accused the Petitioner of knowingly accepting the assignment from MPPWD despite the existence of an architectural services contract for the same scope of work. Therefore, Respondent No. 3 alleged that the Petitioner had violated Clause 2(1)(xv) of the Architects (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 19897, which prohibits architects from accepting work that conflicts with existing contracts.
2.5. On receipt of a notice for the said complaint, the Petitioner submitted a detailed pointwise response dated 9th July, 2019 to the Council, explaining
6 “PIU”
7 “Regulations”
the facts in detail. Simultaneously, Respondent No. 3 also issued a legal notice to the Petitioner, threatening to initiate civil and criminal action.
2.6. On 31st August, 2021, Respondent No. 1 referred a complaint
