Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raj Kumar Rana vs The Lt. Governor on 15 February, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 2992/2009 New Delhi this the 15th day of February, 2010. Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Raj Kumar Rana, S/o late Shri Chottan Singh, R/o 53/4, Ganesh Nagar Ext. II, New Delhi. -Applicant (By Advocate Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) -Versus- 1. The Lt. Governor, Delhi, Chairman DDA, Raj Niwas Delhi. 2. The Vice-Chairman, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. 3. The Commissioner (Pers), DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate Shri Arun Birbal) O R D E R Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J):
Applicant impugns a major penalty charge-sheet issued inordinately under Regulation 25 of the DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999.
2. Applicant, while working as UDC in SFS Housing Scheme during the year 1999-2000 has been charged vide memorandum dated 10.9.2009 for making downward revision/refund of an amount of Rs.6,17,201/- to a private person, showing lack of absolute devotion to duty.
3. Learned counsel of applicant states that the belated charge-sheet issued to applicant without any reasonable explanation is bad in law, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., T.N. Housing Board, JT 2005 (7) SC 439. Learned counsel states that on an identical allegation one Krishan Murari, a UDC when charged with downward revision and refund assailed the chargesheet in OA-2415/2009, which has been set aside by a coordinate Bench decision vide order dated 8.12.2009.
4. Learned counsel has also relied upon plethora of decisions, including the decision of the High Court in Union of India v. V.K. Sareen, WPC No.4757 of 2007, decided on 3.7.2009.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel of respondents would vehemently oppose the contentions and stated that against the decision in Krishan Murari (supra) Writ Petition is being filed. However, it is stated that relating to Housing Scam 1990-2000 initially 48 cases of SFS flats out of 119 cases were returned to DDA by the crime branch holding negligence on the part of the officials of Housing Accounts Wing as well as Housing Management Wing. Accordingly, responsibility was to be fixed if the lapses are of departmental nature or otherwise. However, after the return of 48 cases 20 more cases were referred to the vigilance cell in 2006, which includes the case of applicant. As such, there is no delay in holding the enquiry.
6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record. We find from the statement of imputation at page 17 that the alleged misconduct took place when the applicant was working in SFS (Housing) during 1999-2000. The charges have been framed in September 2009. The time taken to frame charge is about 9 years. Delay defeats justice. The Apex Court in Forest Department v. Abdul Rasul Chowdhury, (2009) 7 SCC 305 ruled that a protracted enquiry on account of delay the charge-sheet is to be quashed.
7. A decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Agyakar Singh v. P.S.E.B., 2009 (1) SCT 709 ruled that delay of about 11 years on equitable basis also does not permit the enquiry to go further. A coordinate Bench in Krishan Murari (supra) after meticulous discussion of the decisions having ruled that there has been a delay in holding the enquiry, which has prejudiced the applicant in his effective defence, on all fours covers the present issue and as the order has not yet been stayed or overturned by the High Court is binding on us, which we respectfully follow. Accordingly, OA is allowed. Memorandum of major penalty chargesheet is set aside with all consequences to the applicant, including the benefit of ACP, which shall be given to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (Shanker Raju)
Member (A) Member (J)
San.