Delhi High Court
Mangat Ram vs Delhi Development Authority on 10 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: ILR1984DELHI817, 1998RLR406
JUDGMENT Usha Mehra, J.
(1) The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the Delhi Development Authority (in short DDA) in Oct., 1969. He was promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineer and subsequently in Nov., 1980 as Executive Engineer. He officiated as Xen DD-II (now N.D.7) till 3.2.83. He handed over the charge of the said Division DD-II to Shri M.C. Behl on 4.2.83. On 6.11.90 petitioner was served with the charge sheet pertaining to the construction of 480 Lig houses at Pocket 'N' (Poorvi) at Pitam Pura. It was alleged that on 14.2.81 Quality Control Cell of Dda inspected the site and found certain irregularities in the construction of those houses. The Technical Examiner of the Gte Organisation again examined the work and matter was referred to the Director Vigilance by the Chief T.E. for investigation on 30.11.83. Certain lapses and irregularities in the execution of work were alleged. Another charge-sheet was issued on 26.12.90 in respect of construction of 926 Janta Houses at Pocket 'B' (Poorvi) Pitam Pura. Third charge-sheet was issued on 25.6.93 regarding the development of the land Zone H-5 (Pt.) Pitampura Sh Sewerage in Phase-11 (Balance Work). The allegation was that in the work which was carried out by the petitioner in 1982 83 some irregularities were found and that the work was found to be substandard on quality control inspection. Yet another charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 8.7.97 pertaining to the work done in 1980-83 relating to the development of land near Wazirpur Village for residential colony, Phase-III. Because of these charge sheets and pendency of the departmental proceedings, the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short DPC) which met in Nov. 1990, again in Sept. 1993 and Dec. 1993 respectively considered the case of the petitioner for promotion but kept the result in sealed cover. The charges levelled against him and depriving him of the promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer pertains to the period of 1980-83, The charge sheets regarding the alleged irregularities have been issued after almost ten years. The Inquiry Officers appointed in each of the case have not proceeded in any of the case till date thereby depriving the petitioner of his chances of promotion. Since charge sheets have been issued after a lapse of 7 to 10 years and the Inquiry Officer have not proceeded with the enquiry till date, hence charge sheets are liable to be quashed and he be promoted to the rank of S.E. which promotion was illegally deprived.
(2) Respondent tried to explain away the delay by submitting that the first charge-sheet which was issued on 1st/6th Nov. 1990 could not have been issued earlier because the record relating to that work including the measurement books were not available. The measurement books were lying with one Mr. U.P. Sharma. He was under suspension and absconding. Police report was lodged against him. The record was partly received in April-May, 1986. Therefore the case was investigated and handed over to the S.E. for comments who gave same in Dec. 1987. The Vice Chairman after considering the entire case ordered major penalty proceedings and also referred the case to the Chief Vigilance Commission (in short CVC) for advice. The advice from Cvc was received on 19.7.89. Accordingly charge-sheet was issued on 6.11.90. The I.O. was appointed in Oct., 1991. Since that I.O. was not available another I.O. was appointed in Nov. 1992 and was subsequently changed in July, 1993. The enquiry is pending.
(3) As regards second charge-sheet the respondent tried to explain the delay by saying that the Vice Chairman noted a news item in Indian Express that some houses in Pitam Pura were inspected and the matter had been referred to me C.B.R.I, for advice. The said C.B.R.I. gave damaging report about the foundation of the walls. On reading that report, the Vice Chairman got the matter investigated through the Engineer Member, DDA. Thereafter one Shri K.K. Sood and Shri Joginder Singh alongwith others were placed under suspension on 9-7-84. The work was got inspected on 19.8.84. Measurements were taken on 22nd August, 1984 in the presence of C.E. (Quality Control). The C.E. (North Zone) found that the secured advance of Rs. 14.90 lakhs had been paid to the contractor and certain shortages were there in the material. Accordingly a memo was issued to the petitioner on 30.8.84. The S.E. submitted his detailed report in Nov. 1984 identifying the name and defaulting officers. Accordingly on 13.12.84 another memo was issued to the petitioner. He submitted his reply on 20.12.84. On the representation of the petitioner his suspension was revoked. He was reinstated on 15.1.85 alongwith others. The Vice Chairman after considering the details of the investigation ordered in Oct. 1987 to initiate major penalty proceedings against the petitioner. It was only then that the charge sheet dated 26.12.90 was issued.
(4) Third charge-sheet was issued on 25.6.93. This pertained to the work of sewerage line which was inspected by the Lt. Governor. The L.G. noticed the detective work and found that sewerage lines were not functioning properly. On the basis of that note of the L.G. the C.E. (Quality Control) conducted an enquiry in May, 1986 and submitted his report in July, 1986. He asked the Vigilance Deptt. of Dda to seize the measurement books. The Vigilance Department conducted a detailed inspection. On the basis of that inspection report, the Vice Chairman ordered for major penalty proceedings against the petitioner on 26th May, 1988. It was thereafter that charge sheet was issued on 25.6.93. Inquiry officer was appointed on 1st March, 1993 but proceedings could not proceed.
(5) Similarly, fourth charge-sheet was issued on 28.9.97 regarding the work of development of land near Wazirpur village. The work was raided by the Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi. Adm. The said Deptt., thereafter requested the Chief T.E. to inspect the work technically to know about the quality of work. The work was technically examined by Chief T.E. on 3.2.86. 4.2.86 and 28.2.86. He submitted his report on 28.2.86. Since the documents were seized by the Anti Corruption Branch who inspite of repeated requests did not return the documents till Feb., 1996. Hence the charge-sheet could not be issued earlier than July 1997. It has also been submitted by the respondent that the petitioner's case was considered for the promotion to the post of S.E. by the D.P.C. held on 28.11.90. The D.P.C. after taking into account the ARCs, vigilance clearance status and other requirements of the post ordered that the recommendations of the Dpc in respect of the petitioner be kept in sealed cover. Similarly the D.P.C. held on 8.9.93 and on 17.12.93 directed that the recommendations be kept in sealed cover. The D.P.C. which was held on 2.2.94 could not consider the case of the petitioner because there was only one post and the petitioner did not find place in the zone of consideration. Similar decision was taken by the D.P.C. held on 19.4.94. Petitioner was lastly considered by D.P.C. on 26.7.96 and it was found that he was unfit for promotion because of the vigilance and departmental proceedings pending against him.
(6) I have heard Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna for the petitioner and Mrs. Anusuya Salwan for the DDA. Admittedly the cases covered by all the four charge-sheets pertain to the period 1980-83. Petitioner was made Incharge of DD-II Division in Nov. 1980. He. handed over the charge of that Division on 3.2.83. It is also a fact on record that work of 480 Lig House at Pocket 'N' (Poorvi) at Pitam Pura, were got inspected by the T.E. of Cte on 16.11.83, Matter was referred by Cte to the Vigilance Deptt. of Dda on 30.11.83. Similarly with regard to the work of 936 Janta Houses at Pocket 'V' (Poorvi) Pitampura work was got inspected by the C.E. (Quality Control) on 1.6.84 and 5.6.84. With regard to development of land for Zone H-5 (Pt), Pitampura work was inspected on 4.10.85 by the C.E. (Quality Control), who submitted his report on 30.4.84. As regards the work of development of land near Wazirpur Village the work was inspected by the T.E. of C.T.E. He submitted his report in Feb. 1986. In the first case the charge sheet was issued on 6.11.90, in the second case on 26.12.90, in the third case on 25.6.93 and in the fourth case on 28.7.97. It is also a fact on record that against the first charge sheet Inquiry officer was appointed on 10.10.91, who was changed on 30.11.92 and finally changed on 6.7.93. Departmental proceedings have not progressed. Similarly of the second charge, the Inquiry Officer was appointed on 1.3.93 who was changed on 3.5.95 again changed on 20.6.96. The departmental proceedings have not progressed at all. So tar as the third case is concerned, the I.O. was appointed on 14.11.94 and till date no progress made. In the fourth case though the charge-sheet was issued on 28.7.97 but till date I.O. has not been appointed.
(7) The above facts go to show that the Dda took the matter casually. After the inspection of the site in 1983-84 the Dda did not take any step to issue charge-sheet or start departmental proceedings. In fact no cogent or plausible explanation has been offered by the respondent to justify the delay in each of the cases. For example in the first case the inspection by the T.E. took place on 16th November 1983. The matter was referred to the Vigilance Department of Dda on 30.11.83. From Nov., 1983 till Nov. 1990. no action was taken. The effort by the respondent to explain the delay by saying that the documents were taken away by one Mr. U.P. Sharma and hence inspection of the record could not be given appears to be a lame exercise. The respondent has admitted that the record was received by it in April- May, 1986. Then what prevented it from initiating action in April/May, 1986 itself. Why it had to wait till Nov. 1990 for that there is no explanation except saying that S.E. gave his comments in Dec. 1987 and vigilance clearance from Cvc was received in July, 1989. From 1983 to 1986 there is no explanation except to say that the record was with Mr. U.P. Sharma. From April-May, 1986 to Dec. 1987 delay remains unexplained except saying that the S.E. did not give his comments; when the matter was sent to Cvc there is no whisper of the same. Similarly from Dec. 1987 to July, 1989 why the matter was kept pending with the Vice Chairman and why the vigilance Clearance from Cvc was not obtained earlier. Even otherwise Cvc clearance was received in July, 1989 and yet the charge-sheet was not issued till Nov. 1990. For this also there is no explanation. This shows that the respondent was not vigilant in pursuing the matter. If the charges were so serious then the respondent ought to have been vigilant enough to initiate departmental proceedings forthwith rather than dilly dallying the action for nearly seven years. The matter did not end in Nov. 1990 when charge-sheet was issued. But thereafter also the Dda has been slack in pursuing the departmental proceedings. For this delay again there is no justification nor any reasonable explanation offered. In Oct. 1991, I.O. was appointed who was changed thrice thus till date the departmental proceedings have not commenced. Why three Inquiry Officers had to be changed resulting in further delay for that there is no explanation. Similarly with regard to the second charge sheet the quality control inspection took place on 19.8.84. Thereafter there is no explanation as to why the departmental proceedings could not be initiated against the petitioner immediately. No explanation worth the name has been given. According to respondent the Vice Chairman after considering all the details and the investigation ordered in Oct., 1987 to initiate major penalty proceedings whereas the charge-sheet, was issued in Dec., 1990. This shows the respondent was not interested in initiating action against the petitioner. Moreover, three I.Os. have changed from March, 1993 to June, 1996 and the departmental proceedings have not yet started. Similarly for the delay in issuing the third charge-sheet no plausible explanation has been given by the respondent. As per respondent's own showing the C.E. (Quality Control) inspected the work on 4.10.85. He submitted his report on 30.4.86. From 30.4.86 till Jule, 1993 no explanation worth the name has been rendered by respondent to justify the delay in initiating departmental proceedings. As per the respondent's own showing the Vice Chairman ordered major penalty proceedings on 26.5.88 but from 26.5.88 till 25.6.93 no action was taken nor any justified cause shown for this inordinate delay. Similarly regarding the work of Village Wazirpur the same was inspected by the T.E. of Cte in Feb. 1986 but no action on the basis of that report was taken till July, 1997. The respondent's explanation that the documents were taken away by the Anti Corruption Deptt. is belied from the reading of charge-sheet dated 28.7.97. In the statement of charges enclosed with the charge-sheet the respondent admitted that the final report of the Anti Corruption Deptt. was received on 2.12.89. In view of this admission it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent now to say that since the matter was pending with the Anti Corruption Deptt. therefore, charge-sheet could not be issued earlier. Having received the final report of the Anti Corruption Deptt. in Dec. 1989 there was no justification nor any offered as to why the charge-sheet was issued in July, 1997. Morever, no explanation has been given why departmental proceedings have not progressed in each of the three cases and in the last case no 1.0. has till date been appointed.
(8) From the facts narrated and discussed above it becomes clear that the T. E. inspected the work of the petitioner in Nov. 1983 in the first case, in June, 1984 in the second case and April, 1986 in the third case and Feb., 1986 in the fourth case. The Vice Chairman ordered action to be taken in 1986 and 1988 respectively. Still the respondent did not take any action till 1990 in the first case, Dec., 1990 in the second case, June 1993 in the third case and July, 1997 in the fourth case. One fails to understand what prompted the Dda in deferring the departmental proceedings against the petitioner for the allegedly defective work executed under supervision of the petitioner. If now the Dda is permitted to initiate or proceed with the enquiry it would tantamount to depriving the petitioner his right of defense. Because by this time most of the records will not be available. Once the evidence is lost it would cause great prejudice to the delinquent to establish his case. There was in fact no need for the Dda to wait for such a long time particularly when the reports of Quality Control and the Vigilance Department as well as the report of the C. E. (Quality Control) against the sub-standard work executed in 1980-83 had been received by the Dda from 1983 to 1986. If the matter was serious then the departmental Proceedings should have been initiated straight way. This would have given chance to the petitioner to defend himself. At that time the evidence would have been intact and either party could have used the same to prove his case, But after a lapse of ten years or more the evidence at site must have changed. If now the enquiry is allowed to proceed it would cause great prejudice to the petitioner. It in fact violated his right to defense.
(9) It is a settled principle of law that unexplained delay vitiate the departmental proceedings. Explanation which the Dda tried to give as given in the counter affidavit is self-contradictory. In fact explanation given by the Dda in the counter affidavit cannot be called even a plausible explanation. Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh, observed that in the absence of any explanation or plausible explanation of delay in initiating departmental proceedings the impugned order cannot be sustained. As already pointed out above there is no justification for the inordinate delay of 7 to 10 years in each of the case in initiating departmental proceedings and then not pursuing the same coupled with the fact of changing the Inquiry Officers three times without just cause at its own whims and fancies, this court has no option but to quash the charge sheets (- - - -). The W.P. is allowed. The impugned charge sheets are hereby quashed. Consequently departmental proceedings are also quashed.
(10) Before parting I must mention that D.P.C. recommendations were kept is seal covers. I ordered for the opening of the same. The D.P.C. which met on 28th November, 1990 graded the petitioner "Good" but stated "unlit for promotion". Declaring him unfit is contradictory in term, having graded him "Good" there was no justification to say him "unfit" except that the members of the D.P.C. had in mind the vigilance cases against the petitioner. The D.P.C. after considerating the ACRs, the work and other criteria for promotion graded him good. Having graded him good, there was no justification to declare him unfit for promotion. It is in this backdrop directions are given to the respondent to re-consider the case of the petitioner for promotion for the period November 1990 when the petitioner was graded "Good". If need be special D.P.C. may be constituted to consider his case for the period November, 1990 within four weeks