Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dalip Singh Verma vs Govt. Of Nctd on 16 December, 2025
1
O.A. No. 2086/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2086/2021
Reserved on: 13.11.2025
Pronounced on:16.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Sh. Dalip Singh Verma (D.S. Verma)
S/o Late Sh. Het Ram
R/o Flat No. 50, St. Ann CGHS,
Plot No. 8A, Sector-7, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110075
Aged about 62 years
Retired as Assistant Director (Education),
District South-West (A),
Group 'B'
..Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Jasvinder Kaur)
VERSUS
1. GNCTD through LG (Appellate Authority)
IP Estate, New Delhi Raj Niwas
New Delhi - 110054.
2. Chief Secretary, Delhi
Delhi Sachivalaya, IP Estate
New Delhi.
3. Pr. Secretary
Dte. of Vigilance, GNCTD
Delhi Sachivalaya, Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H.A. Khan)
2025.12.18
ANJALI
16:49:38+05'30'
2
O.A. No. 2086/2021
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. B.Anand, Member (A):
By way of filing of this Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following relief(s):
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned penalty order dated 23.04.2019 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority, being illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law;
(b) Declare that the entire departmental proceedings initiated against the Applicant vide Memorandum dated 16.06.2017 are vitiated and void ab initio;
(c) Direct the Respondents to grant all consequential service and monetary benefits, including restoration of pay, arrears, recalculation of pension, gratuity and all retiral benefits, with interest;
(d) Direct the Respondents to revise the pension and other retiral dues of the Applicant by treating the impugned punishment as non-existent;
(e) Award costs of the proceedings in favour of the Applicant; and
(f) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed reply and have disputed and contested the claim of the applicant. The applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated his claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.
Facts of the case:-
3. The applicant joined the service of the Government of NCT of Delhi on 25.05.1985 as DASS Grade-II and earned promotions in due course of time. He was posted in the Office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, New Delhi as Office Superintendent in February, 2000 and was entrusted with the charge of the 2025.12.18 ANJALI 16:49:38+05'30' 3 O.A. No. 2086/2021 Administration Branch. His service record remained unblemished throughout his career.
4. Vide communication dated 04.04.2002, the applicant was appointed as Election Officer under Section 30(2) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, by the Assistant Registrar (South) for conducting the elections of Lokvit Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. In discharge of his official duties, the applicant issued letters dated 11.04.2002 and 03.05.2002 calling upon the President/Secretary of the said Society to submit the requisite documents for holding elections. As no response was received initially, he issued a reminder.
5. On 13.05.2002, the applicant received a reply dated 10.05.2002 from the Secretary of the Society informing that the elections had already been conducted on 24.03.2002, that is, prior to the applicant's appointment as Election Officer, and enclosed therewith the election report. After resuming duty from leave, the applicant forwarded the said communication along with all enclosures to the Assistant Registrar (South) on 12.06.2002 for necessary action, clearly conveying that the Society had not furnished the records required for conduct of election.
6. In the year 2006, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) initiated investigation into alleged irregularities relating to several Cooperative Group Housing Societies including Lokvit Cooperative Group Housing Society. An FIR bearing RC-01(E)/2006/EOW-II/DLI dated 20.03.2006 was registered, wherein the applicant was initially named. However, after investigation, his name was deleted and he 2025.12.18 ANJALI 16:49:38+05'30' 4 O.A. No. 2086/2021 was not included in the final charge-sheet filed by the CBI before the competent criminal court. In June, 2007, the CBI advised the Government of NCT of Delhi to take action against the applicant as deemed fit under the Rules. Thereafter, as no adverse material was found against him, the applicant was promoted to DANICS on ad hoc basis in December, 2007.
7. After a long lapse of more than fifteen years from the date of the alleged incident, the respondents issued a Memorandum of Charges dated 16.06.2017 initiating disciplinary proceedings against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Two Articles of Charge were framed against him, alleging that he had received a bogus election report to facilitate fraudulent revival of a dormant society and that he had falsely informed the Assistant Registrar (South) regarding the election of the Managing Committee.
8. The applicant submitted a detailed reply dated 08.08.2017 denying the charges. An Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on 29.08.2017. During the disciplinary enquiry, four prosecution witnesses and two defence witnesses were examined. The Inquiry Officer submitted his findings on 27.11.2018 holding the charges as proved.
9. Acting on the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 23.04.2019 imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by two stages till retirement, with further directions that future increments would be postponed. The applicant superannuated on 30.04.2019 and received the punishment order after retirement on 13.05.2019. 2025.12.18 ANJALI 16:49:38+05'30' 5 O.A. No. 2086/2021
10. The applicant preferred a statutory appeal on 30.05.2019. However, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 25.02.2021 without dealing with the grounds raised therein in detail. Aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty and appellate orders, the applicant has approached this Tribunal for redressal of his grievance(s).
Learned counsel for the applicant submissions:-
11. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned charge memorandum dated 16.06.2017, the penalty order dated 23.04.2019, and the appellate order dated 25.02.2021 are unsustainable both on law and facts. The proceedings suffer from inordinate delay, incorrect factual assumptions, and a complete misappreciation of the statutory duties of an Election Officer.
12. The foremost submission is that the charge memo was issued after an unexplained delay of nearly 15 years from the date of the alleged incident. The Vigilance file remained unattended between 2008 and 2017 without any explanation. Such delay vitiates the entire proceedings. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh, 1990 Supp SCC 738, wherein the Court held that when the department has all the material but still fails to initiate proceedings within a reasonable time and offers no explanation for the delay, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be allowed to continue. The present case is squarely covered by this principle.
13. Learned counsel also relies upon A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225, wherein the Supreme Court held that the right to 2025.12.18 ANJALI 16:49:38+05'30' 6 O.A. No. 2086/2021 a fair and expeditious process is a part of natural justice and an unexplained delay frustrates fairness itself. This principle applies with equal force to service jurisprudence. When a charge memo is issued after an excessive lapse of time, at a stage when the employee is about to retire, the proceedings are rendered unfair.
14. To reinforce the argument on delay and prejudice, reliance is placed upon State of Punjab & Ors. v. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570, wherein the Hon'ble Court held that delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings may itself be a reason to quash the proceedings, if the delay is unreasonable and remains unexplained.
The Court emphasised that departmental authorities must act promptly and cannot keep proceedings hanging indefinitely.
15. On facts, learned counsel submits that even the foundation of the charges is incorrect. The CBI conducted a detailed investigation; the applicant was initially named in the FIR but later dropped from the charge-sheet as no evidence was found against him. The CBI found that the alleged irregularities pertained to the year 2000, much prior to the applicant's appointment as Election Officer on 04.04.2002. PW-1 (CBI Inspector) categorically admitted in cross- examination that the bogus nature of the election could be determined only after handwriting analysis conducted during the investigation. This shows that no Election Officer in 2002 could have detected what the CBI discovered years later through expert examination.
16. On the merits of Charge I, learned counsel submits that the allegation that the applicant accepted a bogus election report to 2025.12.18 ANJALI 16:49:38+05'30' 7 O.A. No. 2086/2021 revive a dormant society is unfounded. The society was never declared defunct nor put into liquidation. RCS record show that the society held elections in 2000 and the list of 105 members was verified and approved on 11.12.2000.
17. The CBI also recorded that any irregularities had ended in 2000. Therefore, there was no "revival" in 2002 and the allegation of connivance is factually impossible.
18. Regarding the statutory duties, it is submitted that under Section 30(2) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, the Election Officer's role is limited to conducting elections when records are supplied. He has no authority to investigate or verify the genuineness of past elections. DW-2, Assistant Registrar, confirmed in cross-examination that the Election Officer cannot suo motu inquire into the validity of elections claimed by a society.
19. The applicant merely forwarded the society's letter stating that elections had already been held on 24.03.2002. Forwarding information cannot be equated with approving or accepting it.
20. Regarding Charge II, learned counsel submits that there was no false information in the applicant's letter dated 12.06.2002. The applicant only reported what the society had stated. The CBI's own final charge-sheet dated 20.07.2007 states that the society had informed RCS that elections were held on 24.03.2002. Hence, the allegation of falsehood is contrary to the record.
21. Learned counsel submits that the Inquiry Authority and the Appellate Authority failed to consider the statutory scheme and the evidence on record. The orders are non-speaking and mechanically 2025.12.18 ANJALI 16:49:38+05'30' 8 O.A. No. 2086/2021 passed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Madras v. F.X. Fernando, (1994) 2 SCC 746, has held that disciplinary authorities must act strictly in accordance with statutory provisions and cannot attribute duties not assigned by law. In the present case, the authorities wrongly presumed that the applicant was required to verify the genuineness of the society's claim, which is contrary to the Act and Rules.
22. Learned counsel further submits that the Disciplinary Authority incorrectly applied the standard of proof. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 3 SCC 66 has held that suspicion cannot take the place of proof and findings must be based on reliable evidence. However, the Inquiry Authority's conclusions are based on assumptions and not on concrete evidence.
23. Finally, it is submitted that the penalty was imposed on 23.04.2019 just a few days before the applicant's retirement on 30.04.2019, causing grave prejudice to his pensionary benefits. Initiating proceedings after an unexplained delay of 15 years and punishing an employee on the eve of his retirement is contrary to fairness and justice.
24. In view of the above submissions, supported by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited herein, learned counsel prays that the charge memorandum, penalty order, and appellate order be quashed and all consequential benefits restored to the applicant. 2025.12.18 ANJALI 16:49:38+05'30' 9 O.A. No. 2086/2021 Submissions of learned counsel for the Respondents:-
25. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the Original Application and submitted that the impugned penalty order dated 23.04.2019 and the appellate order passed thereafter have been issued strictly in accordance with law, after following due process and after proper appreciation of facts, evidence and records. It is submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated lawfully under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, based on the findings of the investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in respect of Lokvit Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited.
26. Learned counsel submits that the applicant was appointed as Election Officer vide order dated 04.04.2002, and it was categorically mentioned therein that the term of the Managing Committee of Lokvit Cooperative Group Housing Society had already expired on 09.07.2001. Further, despite a statutory requisition issued under Section 30(1) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 on 25.02.2002, the society failed to comply within the stipulated time. Therefore, the applicant was fully aware that the Managing Committee had no authority whatsoever to conduct any election on 24.03.2002. In spite of having full knowledge of this illegality, the applicant accepted the bogus election report submitted by the expired Managing Committee and forwarded the same to the Assistant Registrar (South) vide letter dated 12.06.2002, thereby endorsing an illegal election.
2025.12.18 ANJALI 16:49:38+05'30' 10 O.A. No. 2086/2021
27. It is further submitted that the applicant failed to discharge his statutory duties with due diligence. The applicant initially issued a notice dated 03.05.2002 to the society at its registered address at 18/2, Special Institutional Area, Satsang Vihar, New Delhi whereas the reply dated 10.05.2002 was received from a completely different address at 34/13, East Patel Nagar. The applicant neither questioned this sudden change of address nor verified from the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies whether such change of address had been approved by the department. This omission, according to the respondents, clearly establishes negligence and connivance on the part of the applicant.
28. Learned counsel further submits that under Section 31(1) of the DCS Act, 1972, the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and conduct of elections vests in duly appointed election authorities. Further, under Rule 58(1) read with Schedule II of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973, extensive preparatory work is required before conducting elections. The applicant, however, did not initiate any of the mandatory preparatory processes prescribed under the Rules. Had the applicant performed his duties diligently under the statutory framework, the genuineness of the society and the illegality of the so-called election would have surfaced immediately.
29. Learned counsel submits that the CBI investigation report dated 22.06.2007 clearly concluded that the applicant had connived with the office bearers of the society and had fraudulently received the bogus election report dated 13.05.2002 and forwarded the same to the Assistant Registrar (South). Based on this categorical finding 2025.12.18 ANJALI 16:49:38+05'30' 11 O.A. No. 2086/2021 of the CBI, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is submitted that merely because the applicant was not arrayed as an accused before the criminal court does not absolve him of departmental liability, as the standards of proof in departmental proceedings are entirely different from those in criminal prosecution.
30. The respondents further submit that there is no limitation prescribed under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a serving government servant. Since the misconduct committed by the applicant involved serious irregularities affecting public interest and cooperative housing allotments, the delay in initiation of proceedings does not vitiate the action. The delay, according to the respondents, occurred due to the complex nature of the investigation and examination at multiple administrative levels.
31. It is also submitted that during the disciplinary inquiry, full opportunity of hearing was granted to the applicant. The Inquiry Officer examined all records, prosecution witnesses and documents. After appreciation of the complete evidence, the Inquiry Officer found the charges to be proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority examined the entire material on record and passed a reasoned and speaking order dated 23.04.2019, imposing a suitable penalty commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
32. Learned counsel further submits that the appeal preferred by the applicant was also duly considered by the Appellate Authority after granting personal hearing. Upon due application of mind and 2025.12.18 ANJALI 16:49:38+05'30' 12 O.A. No. 2086/2021 re-examination of the entire record, the appellate authority rejected the appeal as being devoid of merit. Hence, there is no violation of principles of natural justice at any stage.
33. It is lastly submitted that the punishment imposed upon the applicant is proportionate to the misconduct proved, and no interference is warranted by this Hon'ble Tribunal in exercise of its limited power of judicial review over disciplinary matters. The respondents, therefore, pray that the Original Application be dismissed with costs, being devoid of any merit. Conclusion:
34. From the said facts of the matter already enumerated in detail, it is evident that the charges levelled against the applicant pertain to the period of the year 2002, whereas the first charge memorandum was issued only on 16.06.2017, i.e., after an inordinate delay of about 15 years.
35. Be that as it may, upon a careful analysis of the charge memorandum, it is seen that in the imputation of misconduct, it is stated that the applicant was appointed as an Election Officer vide order dated 04.04.2002 by the Assistant Registrar (South), exercising powers under Section 30(ii) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, to hold the elections of the Managing Committee of Lokvit Cooperative Group Housing Society within 60 days. Pursuant thereto, the applicant addressed a letter dated 11.04.2002 to the President/Secretary of the said Society calling upon him to appear before his office along with the required documents on 16.04.2002. When no one appeared on the said date, the applicant issued a 2025.12.18 ANJALI 16:49:38+05'30' 13 O.A. No. 2086/2021 reminder on 03.05.2002, directing the President/Secretary to appear on or before 08.05.2002 with the relevant documents. Both these letters were addressed to 18/2, Special Institutional Area, Satsang Vihar, New Delhi.
36. However, surprisingly, the President of the Society sent a reply dated 10.05.2002 from a different address, namely 34/13, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, stating that elections to the Society had already been held on 25.03.2002, and that the intimation of the same had been sent to the applicant under certificate of posting. There are serious loose ends in this chain of events. The applicant had been appointed as Election Officer only on 04.04.2002, whereas the elections are stated to have already been held on 24.03.2002, i.e., even before his appointment. Further, though it is claimed that intimation was sent under certificate of posting, there is no material before us to indicate whether such letter was ever received by the applicant or the respondents.
37. In the same letter dated 10.05.2002, the President of the Society enclosed copies of the agenda notice, election schedule and the report of the Election Officer. In this report, the name of the Election Officer is shown as one Sh. R.S. Sharma, who is stated to have been appointed by the Managing Committee itself in its meeting dated 17.12.2001. Thus, it appears that the election programme had already been drawn up between 11.03.2002 and 24.03.2002, and the same was also endorsed to the office of the Assistant Registrar (South), RCS. This raises a pertinent question as to why the respondents were not aware of the appointment of an Election Officer 2025.12.18 ANJALI 16:49:38+05'30' 14 O.A. No. 2086/2021 by the Managing Committee earlier and, if so, what was the necessity of appointing the applicant as Election Officer on 04.04.2002.
38. The applicant has contended that the conduct and supervision of elections squarely falls within the responsibility of the Assistant Registrar(South), as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act and Rules. It is also noticeable that while the applicant's letters were sent to one address, the reply came from a different address, which would ordinarily arouse suspicion in the mind of any prudent person. However, the applicant merely forwarded the said letter to the Assistant Registrar vide his communication dated 12.06.2002, faithfully narrating the sequence of events, namely, his appointment as Election Officer on 04.04.2002, the issuance of the first letter on 11.04.2002, the reminder dated 03.05.2002, and the fact that the Society did not submit the required documents for election expenses and had only informed that elections were already held on 24.03.2002.
39. In the scope of judicial review, this Tribunal is not required to sit as a superior authority and examine the manner in which the departmental officers functioned on merits. Therefore, without delving deeper into fixing responsibility upon any particular officer or entering into the issue of alleged connivance with the office bearers of the Society, we refrain from recording any categorical finding on that aspect. However, we may observe that the conduct of the applicant during the relevant period does not inspire complete confidence.
40. That being the settled position of law, the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to examining whether the 2025.12.18 ANJALI 16:49:38+05'30' 15 O.A. No. 2086/2021 rules governing the disciplinary proceedings have been scrupulously followed and whether the action taken conforms to law. Accordingly, we confine our consideration to the crucial issue of inordinate and unexplained delay in the initiation and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
41. The alleged incident pertains to the year 2002, and even the CBI reference was made much earlier. However, the charge memorandum came to be issued only on 16.06.2017, i.e., after about 15 years from the alleged misconduct and nearly 10 years from the CBI reference. The learned counsel for the applicant has rightly contended that such a gross delay is wholly arbitrary, unexplained and has caused serious prejudice to the applicant. On the other hand, the respondents, in their counter reply, have merely stated that under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, there is no bar for initiating disciplinary proceedings at any time against a serving employee for deliberate wrongdoing.
42. However, it is well settled by the law of the land that inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings vitiates the entire action. The applicant has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and Another (supra) wherein the Court emphatically held that unexplained delay in framing charges is fatal to the departmental proceedings. The relevant para 4 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"4. The appeal against the order dated 16.12.1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The irregularities 2025.12.18 ANJALI 16:49:38+05'30' 16 O.A. No. 2086/2021 which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-1977. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April, 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal."
43. The applicant has also relied upon the judgment in Registrar, Cooperative Societies (supra) wherein the issue of inordinate delay in framing charges was again examined. The relevant para 15 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"15. Then again the finding that there is long delay in initiating of departmental proceedings cannot be supported because in this case the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption had not been prompt. Therefore, the appellant cannot be faulted. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the Tribunal and direct that the matter be proceeded with from the stage at which it was left. It is a settled principle of law and justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Therefore, we would direct that another Enquiry Officer appointed in order to remove any apprehension of bias on the part of respondent. The Civil Appeal will stand allowed with no cost."
44. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, 1995 SCC (2) 570, reiterating the same principle. The relevant portion of the same, read as under:-
"No action was taken against the respondent until 1992. He continued in service as usual. For the first time, he was called to the office of the Secretary to the Home Department on March 25, 1992 for questioning and thereafter the memo of charges was issued on July 9, 1992."
XXX "Now remains the question of delay. There is undoubtedly a delay of five and a half years in serving the charges. The question is whether the said delay warranted the quashing of charges in this case. It is trite to say that such disciplinary proceeding must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities. They cannot be initiated after lapse of considerable time. It would not be fair to the delinquent officer. Such delay also makes 2025.12.18 ANJALI 16:49:38+05'30' 17 O.A. No. 2086/2021 the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, malafides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the court may well interfere and quash the charges. But how long a delay is too long always depends upon the fact-, of the given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. In other words, the court has to indulge in a process of balancing."
45. Therefore, without dwelling further into the disputed facts to assign blame or to establish alleged connivance, we restrict ourselves solely to the issue of inordinate delay in initiation and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. On this sole ground, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case warranting judicial interference. Consequently, the impugned orders are hereby set aside. Considering the fact that the applicant is now in his late 60s and that the alleged incident had occurred as far back as in the year 2002, we do not grant any liberty to the respondents to revive the proceedings.
46. Accordingly, the O.A. stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) (Member (J)
/anjali/
2025.12.18
ANJALI
16:49:38+05'30'