$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4456/2016 & CM APPL. 38881/2024 PRADEEP SINGH AHLUWALIA .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner (in-Person).

versus DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORATATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Prashanto Sen, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddhant Nath, Mr. Amaan Khan, Ms. Rajlakshmi Singh and Ms. Vanibha Mehta, Advocates for R-1 with Deputy Manager Legal.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 24.02.2026

1. The Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash (i) order dated 18^th September, 2006, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement, (ii) the appellate order dated 18^th December, 2015 passed by the Board of Respondent No. 1/Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd.,, “DTTDC” and (iii) the reversion order dated 20^th May, 2005. Consequential reinstatement along with seniority, promotion, arrears, and interest is also prayed for.

2. The petition arises from disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, “CCS (CCA) Rules” read with the DTTDC Staff Service

Rules, 1986, culminating in an enquiry report dated 21^st May, 2004 holding both articles of charge proved, followed by order dated 18^th September, 2006, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement.

3. This is the second round of litigation. In the first round, W.P.(C) 12871/2009, this Court, by judgment delivered on 22^nd September, 2015, upheld the decision to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings ex parte and declined to interfere with the penalty imposed. The appellate order then in force dated 30^th May, 2007 was set aside only because it did not deal with one specific stand of the Petitioner. The appeal was remanded for fresh consideration confined to that aspect, without disturbing the penalty order dated 18^th September, 2006.

4. The present petition therefore turns, in substance, on whether the appellate order dated 18^th December, 2015 complies with the remand mandate and whether it suffers from illegality that warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Factual Background

5. The facts of the case are as follows:

5.1. The Petitioner was served with a memorandum of charge dated 7^th March, 2003 proposing an enquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Article I alleged that on 31^st March, 2000, while posted at the New Delhi Railway Station Tourist Information Counter, the Petitioner reported late, did not wear a name plate, and refused to sign the prescribed inspection proforma, which was treated as wilful insubordination and disobedience.

5.2. Article II alleged that after closure of the Noida Information Counter in February, 2001 and transfer of the Petitioner to the Catering Division by office order dated 1^st March, 2001, the Petitioner did not report for duty in the Catering Division, yet continued to sign and forward absentee statements for the period between 16^th March, 2001 to 15^th February, 2002 as if he remained Incharge, Noida Information Counter, routing them directly to the salary section without countersignature or verification, thereby drawing salary despite not reporting for duty.

5.3. The enquiry culminated in a report dated 21^st May, 2004 holding both charges proved. The enquiry proceeded ex parte for much of its course, based on the finding that the Petitioner avoided service and did not participate despite opportunities.

5.4. A copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the Petitioner by letter dated 2^nd June, 2004, who submitted his response on 5^th July, 2004. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement with admissible benefits by order dated 18^th September, 2006.

5.5. The Petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by the Board of Directors on 30^th May, 2007 after personal hearing.

5.6. The Petitioner filed W.P.(C) 12871/2009 challenging the p