Vir Karan Chugh vs Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi

S.N. Terdal, J

We have heard Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, counsel for applicant and Mr. Arun Birbal, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all

documents produced by both the parties.

In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(a). Quash all the Notice No. F.25(8)98/Vig./ACB/2700/3031 dated 24.03.2009, Order No. 396/Vig/2009/7/26/7675 dated 27.08.2009,

Memorandum No. F. 25 (8) 98/Vig/ ACB/ 4833 dated 27.04.2010, Notice dated 20.07.2015 and Order No. 174/Vig/2015/8192 dated 06.10.2015, and

(b) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits of pay allowances, benefits of ACP, seniority and promotion, all

arrears, which the applicant would have been entitled to, had the above impugned orders were not passed by the respondents, and

(c) Award consequential benefits of pay, allowances, seniority to the Applicant, and grant cost in favour of the Applicant and pass any other or further

order(s), in favour of the applicant, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just & proper in the above-mentioned facts & circumstances.â€​

The relevant facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Surveyor with respondent-DDA. The Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) of the

Govt. of NCT of Delhi registered FIR against the applicant under Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and after the trial the

Special Judge Delhi vide its judgment dated 16.01.2009 convicted the applicant under the above said provisions and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment (RI) for a period of three years and also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-. On receipt of the said judgment, the disciplinary authority issued

a show cause notice asking the applicant to show cause as to why the penalty of termination from service be not imposed on him by exercising the

power under Regulation 30(1) of DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulation, 1999. The applicant submitted his reply to the show cause

notice. After considering the representation, the disciplinary authority taking a lenient view, imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement on the

applicant with one third cut in pension vide order dated 27.08.2009. Thereafter while hearing some other disciplinary case, the Lt. Governor, who is

also the Chairman of DDA learnt that the disciplinary authority has taken a lenient view with respect to some serious offences of corruption, as such

identifying the case of the applicant, the Lt. Governor in the capacity of Chairman issued a show cause notice on 20.07.2015 to the applicant proposing

to enhance the punishment. The applicant submitted his reply. After considering the reply in exercise of the jurisdiction vested with him under

Regulation 32-G of DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999 imposed a penalty of removal from service on the applicant.

The counsel for the applicant vehemently and strenuously submitted that the disciplinary authority having passed the penalty order in 2009, after 5

years and after undue delay, in the guise of exercising the revisional power, illegally and the punishment of removal has been passed by a non speaking

order without hearing the applicant personally and that the punishment imposed is shocking disproportionate to the alleged

misconduct, though the applicant has put in 26 years of unblemished service.

The counsel for the respondents equally vehemently and strenuously submitted that there is no time limit for the exercise of the power of the

revision by the Chairman under Regulation 32-G of the above said Regulations and that under Regulation 23 of the said Regulation in every case in

which the charge of acceptance of any gratification is established the penalty to be imposed is removal from service and that as the written

submissions have been considered there is no need to give personal hearing. The counsel for the respondents also referred to the detailed counter filed

by the respondents in this regard. The relevant portions of the averments are extracted below:-

“(vi) That during the personnel hearing in a disciplinary case of one Mehroz Khan, Junior Engineer (Civil) of DDA, the then Hon’ble

Chairman/Lt. Governor o Delhi was informed that in some cases involving corruption followed by conviction, the disciplinary authorities at DDA had

not imposed the penalty of termination of services. In the circumstances the Hon’ble Chairman/Lt. Governor of Delhi directed the Vigilance

Department of DDA to identify all such cases and submit the same for his consideration. The Vigilance Department of DDA identified six such cases

and the cases were submitted to the Lt. Governor in his capacity of Chairman DDA for consideration.

(vii).That after examining the cases, the Hon’ble Chairman/Lt. Governor of Delhi prima facie felt satisfied that those were fit cases where the

jurisdiction vested in the said authority under regulation 32-G of DD (Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal) regulation, 1999 be exercised and thus the

said authority (Hon’ble LG) ordered that fresh show cause notices be issued to the concerned officials who were convicted by the court of law in

cases involving corruption with a view to give them an opportunity to represent against the proposed penalty of removal or dismissal. The case of the

present applicant is one of those six cases. Accordingly a show cause notice dated 20.07.2015 was issued to the applicant permitting him to file the

representation/reply in the matter. The applicant filed his replies/ representations dated 24.07.2015 and 04.08.2015. Thereafter, the Hon’ble LG

vide order dated 07.09.2015 in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the said authority under regulation 32-G of DDA (Conduct, Disciplinary and

Appeal) Regulations 1999 directed that penalty of removal be imposed upon the applicant. The applicant was informed accordingly.

(viii) That it is respectfully submitted that it is not in dispute that the applicant stands convicted of an offence involving corruption by a competent court

of law. Though the appeal filed by the applicant is pending for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court, he remains under stigma of

conviction. The order of conviction has neither been stayed nor set aside till date. In the circumstances, the only appropriate punishment in the matter

was that of termination of services of the applicant. Regulation 23 of DDA (Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations 1999 stipulates that in

every case in which the charge of acceptance from any person of any gratification, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or

forbearing to do any official act is established, the penalty mentioned in clauses (i) or clause (j) shall be imposed. It is also stipulated that in any

exceptional case and for special reasons recorded in writing, any other penalty may be imposed. Clause (i) is in respect of removal from service which

shall not be disqualification for further employment. Clause (j) is in respect of dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for

further employment under the government. The present cannot be considered as an exceptional case deserving less than normal punishment. In any

event, this Hon’ble Tribunal may not like to act as an appellate authority over the decision of the competent administrative authority on this issue.

It is respectfully submitted that present OA is without any merits and is liable to be dismissed as such.â€​

In view of the facts and circumstances and the provisions of the above said Regulations and the averments which have been extracted above, we

are of the opinion this OA is devoid of merit.

Accordingly, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.