S.K. Bhatia v. Delhi Development Authority

Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J). A Writ Petition filed as CWP 821/1998 stands transferred to this Tribunal by order dated 07.11.2007. The pleadings were complete, and the parties were ready to go on. Because of the interim orders issued by the High Court from time to time, it appears that the applicants career prospects had not gone off the track.

2. What is challenged in the writ petition is a penalty advice whereby his three increments were stopped with cumulative effect. He was serving as an Assistant Engineer in the Delhi Development Authority at the time when the writ petition had been filed, but has later on been promoted to the higher post. The applicant submits that two matters are required to be taken special note of concerning him, which simultaneously may disable the respondents. The first point urged by counsel was that there was substantial delay, in initiating the action, and its culmination. The unexplained delay had caused him grave prejudice. This should not have been gone unnoticed. The second aspect highlighted was that on the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, it would not have been possible or for any reasonable person to come to a conclusion that the applicant is guilty of any specific misconduct. On a perverse reading alone, punishment has been imposed. His further grievance was that although a statutory appeal had been preferred and by a proper consideration the mistake committed possibly could have been rectified by the appellate authority, the benefit stands denied to him since by the cryptic order, the appeal had been rejected. Meaningful and adequate grounds had been placed in the appeal memorandum, which even on a casual reading would have indicated that justice had been denied to him. But the plea went unnoticed.

3. On behalf of the respondents, however, it was submitted that there was no delay which ultimately caused prejudice to the applicant and as the proceedings have been concluded with his participation, and there was no direct injury highlighted because of the delayed conclusion of the proceedings, presently such ground may not be possible to be agitated by him to any advantage. On the merits, it is submitted that the Tribunal will be slow in interfering with the findings of a domestic inquiry, which had been accepted by the disciplinary authority. It was not necessary for the appellate authority to deal meticulously with the contention raised in an appeal, if ultimately the decision was to concur with the view taken by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, this could not have been highlighted as a serious irregularity, sufficient enough for confering any dividends to the applicant.

4. On behalf of the applicant, reliance had been placed on two decisions of the Delhi High Court in Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Indian Airlines Corporation & Ors. (59 (1995) Delhi Law Times 813) and 74 (1998) Delhi Law Times 437 (D.P Bambah Vs. UOI & Ors.). The two cases had highlighted the possible impact of unexplained delay in disciplinary matters. Court had come heavily on the respondents, since no satisfactory reasons were placed to show why the matter was being unnecessarily delayed. Ultimately reliefs had been granted to the petitioners concerned.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant fairly conceded that in view of the promotion that had been granted to the applicant from time to time, as far as his career is concerned, there has not been much of a lose but nevertheless submits that punishment always operated as a stigma and the circumstances in which such punishment had been imposed and its justifiability should not go unnoticed.

6. The allegations against the applicant could be seen from Annexure-1, the departmental inquiry proceedings, supplied as a compilation. While working as an Assistant Engineer in the Housing Division, the applicant was in-charge of work of construction of a connecting bridge at Rajendra Place, between DDA Building and Building at Plot No. 8 and 12, which had been entrusted with a contractor. During the course of the work, a part of structure had collapsed on 15.03.1985. Although the applicant was placed under suspension, shortly thereafter it had been revoked. The charge sheet was issued only in the year 1989 and the inquiry officer was appointed in early 1992. The final order in the disciplinary proceedings was released after three years and the penalty, as referred to earlier, came to be proposed in the year 1996. The stoppage of increments has been imposed during 1997-99.

7. The charge memo alleged that, Applicant had failed to obtain the approved design and drawings for the centering and shuttering to be adopted for this work from the competent authority. He also did not design the centering and shuttering conforming to CPWD specifications and got the work executed; He had, while working in the above capacity, accepted the sub-standard material/work from the contractor; While working in the above capacity, he had accepted the defective centering and shuttering work and allowed concrete to be laid on the same resulting in the collapse. Learned counsel for the applicant points out that the findings of the Inquiry Officer in sub paragraph 6 of the report was as following: Article-I - not proved. Article-II - not proved. Article-III - proved. According to him, there was no discussion by the inquiry officer or explanation given in the report as to how when Charge Nos. 1 and 2 were not proved, Charge No. 3 could be substantiated. Charge No. 3 was completely dependent on the previous charges. He cited the report to indicate that a finding adverse to him has come to be recorded on no materials whatsoever. Prima facie, the argument appears to be relevant and we have been taken to the relevant pages of the report. Even though normally a Tribunal is not expected to go to the evidence for entering a satisfaction about the findings, as we perused the records, we are inclined to agree with the contention of the applicant that the approach was highly arbitrary and the findings could be characterized as perverse.

8. We are also surprised to note that the appellate authority although had been given all such details and a fervent prayer had been made to him, to look into the matter, the Vice Chairman was satisfied by observing that the applicant had allowed concrete to be laid on defective shuttering work and the same resulted in the collapse. The order concludes by observing that his negligence tarnished the image of DDA.

9. Counsel points out that instead of a legalistic approach as to whether there was sufficient evidence to prove charges against an officer, the appellate authority was more concerned about the image of the organization and this resulted in rejection of the appeal.

10. We find that there was nothing brought before the inquiry officer at the instance of prosecution to scientifically establish that inferior materials have been used. There were only surmises. More importantly when the applicant is absolved from Charge Nos. 1 and 2, the substantiation of which alone would have paved way for an adverse finding with reference to the third change, the enquiry officer has jumped to a conclusion. Really it would have been practically impossible to hold him guilty of the third charge, as they were inter-connected.

11. We find that although there was some delay, in the matter of conducting the inquiry, the circumstance as such is not highlighted as having brought detriment to the applicant. Perhaps it may be possible to assume that he might not have been able to concentrate on his work single-mindedly. The loss as well might have been to the organization. Counsel had invited our attention to Clause 8, Chapter XII of the Vigilance Mannual (page 237 5th Edition) brought out at the instance of the Central Vigilance Commission. Rightly, it has been held as following: 8. Final Order on the Report of Inquiring Authority 8.1 It is in the public interest as well as in the interest of the employees that disciplinary proceedings should be dealt with expeditiously. At the same time, the disciplinary authorities must apply their mind to all relevant facts which are brought out in the enquiry before forming an opinion about the imposition of a penalty, if any, on the Government servant. In cases which do not require consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission or the UPSC, it should normally be possible for the disciplinary authority to take a final decision on the enquiry report within a period of 3 months at the most. In cases where the disciplinary authority feels that it is not possible to adhere to this time limit, a report may be submitted by him to the next higher authority indicating the additional period within which the case is likely to be disposed of and the reasons for the same. In cases where consultation with the UPSC and the CVC is required, every effort should be made to ensure that such cases are disposed of as quickly as possible. But viewed practically, in many a case, it may not be possible to strictly adhere on to the time frame. Although there is a duty cast on the concerned authorities to act with expedition, at the present instance since we are of the view that the penalty advice is not maintainable for an equally valid reason, we are not pronouncing on this contention.

12. We find that the applicant has been imposed with a penalty without justifiable reasons. Resultantly, the impugned orders of the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority stand set aside. The applicant has to be restored with the increments, which have been denied to him. Monetary benefits resulting therefrom have to be given over to him without delay and in any case within a period of three months from today. We make no order as to costs. (N.D. DAYAL) (M. RAMACHANDRAN) MEMBER (A) VICE CHAIRMAN (J) `SRD