Shambhu Nath Singh vs Delhi Development Authority

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

This case contains many peculiar features, that too in the Disciplinary Proceedings. The applicant was working as Junior Engineer in Delhi Development Authority (DDA). He was issued a charge memo dated 10.12.2001 alleging that he failed to report about the unauthorized constructions on plot No. 206, 208, 216 and 223 at Shankar Road and on account of the same, unauthorized construction came into existence. The applicant submitted his reply denying the allegations. Not satisfied with that, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) appointed an Inquiry Officer (IO). Through his report dated 27.02.2004, the IO held that the charges against the applicant were not proved. Taking the same into account, the DA dropped the proceedings vide order dated 28.10.2005. In the ordinary course of things, the matter was to rest at that.

Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against two other AEs, by name L.D. Sharma and Ajay Gupta. It appears that punishment was imposed against them and feeling aggrieved by that, they preferred appeal to the Lt. Governor of Delhi. While dealing with those appeals, the Lt. Governor seems to have made observations that certain aspects were not taken into account in the course of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant herein. In that context, the DA issued a disagreement note to the applicant herein, on 13.12.2007. Stating that no reply was received to the same, he passed an order dated 17.12.2008 imposing the punishment of reduction of time scale by two stages for a period of one year with cumulative effect. In the appeal preferred by the applicant, an order was passed on 28.04.2009, reducing the penalty to the one of reduction of pay scale by one stage for six months. Applicant filed a review before the Chairman of the DDA but the same was rejected on 18.02.2014.

This OA is filed challenging the order of punishment imposed against him, as modified by the Appellate Authority (AA). The applicant contends that once he was exonerated by the DA on the basis of report submitted by IO, it was not competent for him to reopen the proceedings much less to impose punishment. Other grounds are also urged.

The respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the OA. It is stated that the matter was reopened in view of the observation made by the Lt. Governor of Delhi in the appeal preferred by two other engineers; and that the applicant was given adequate opportunity at every stage.

We heard Mr. Karan Chawla for Mr. Nilansh Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant.

This is a rare case in which the order passed by the DA exonerating an employee from the charges was reopened and a disagreement note was issued thereafter. A brief background of the entire case can be discerned from the following para of the order dated 17.12.2008.:-

"WHEREAS disciplinary proceedings under Regulation 25 of DDA Conduct, Disciplinary & Appeal Regulations, 1999 were initiated against Sh. Shambhu Nath Singh, JE vide Memo. No. F.27(177)2000/Vig. Dated 10-12-2001 on the ground while working in Building Department during the year 1998 did not report about unauthorized constructions on plot No. 206,208,216 and 223 Shankar Road to extend undue benefit to the owners/builders, with the result timely action against unauthorized constructions on these properties could not be initiated.

AND WHEREAS Sh. S. K. Mukherjee, I.A.S. (Retd.) was appointed as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against Sh. Shambhu Nath Singh, J.E. vide Order. dated 9.7.2002.

AND WHEREAS the I.O. in his report dated 27.2.2004 has held the charges against Sh. Shambhu Nath Singh, J.E. as not proved.

AND WHEREAS on conclusion of the proceedings, Sh. Shambhu Nath Singh, J.E. was exonerated of the charges vide order No. 385/Vig. dt. 28.10.2005.

AND WHEREAS during examination of the appeal filed by Sh. L.D. Sharma and Sh. I.J. Gupta, AEs it came to the light that certain few facts were not brought out/considered while deciding the case of Sh. Shambhu Nath Singh by the then Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly notice along with disagreement note was issued to Sh. Shambhu Nath Singh, J.E. on 13.12.2007. Sh. Shambhu Nath Singh, J.E. has failed to submit reply of the said notice."

Once the DA has exonerated the applicant, of the charges, through the order dated 28.10.2005, there was absolutely no basis to reopen the case. Even the AA cannot reopen it, because such powers are not conferred by the relevant Rules.

Added to that, the very exercise undertaken by the DA was patently wrong. Even where a disagreement note is issued by the DA, at an appropriate stage, he is required to indicate reasons therefor. Assuming that the employee failed to submit the explanation, the DA would still be under obligation to indicate as to how the findings by the IO cannot be treated as correct.

We are of the view that the Impugned order cannot be sustained in law, for more reasons than one. Therefore, the O.A. is allowed and the punishment imposed against the applicant through order dated 17.12.2008, as modified by the AA, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.