Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
U K Yadav vs Delhi Development Authority Delhi on 22 January, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2925/2016
Reserved on: 15.01.2025
Pronounced on: 22.01.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
U.K. Yadav, AE (Civil)
Aged about 60 years,
S/o Sh. Satya Dev Yadav,
R/o H.No.109, Sultanpur Extn.,
MG Road, Mehrauli, Delhi - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj)
VERSUS
1. Delhi Development Authority,
Through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi
2. The Engineer (Member)
Delhi Development Authority,
B-Block, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Arun Birbal)
2
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. B.Anand, Member (A):
By way of this OA, the applicant, who had retired from the services of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as Assistant Engineer, submits that the impugned charge memo issued by the respondents dated 17.06.2016 is perverse in law. The main ground of his objection for filing of this impugned charge memorandum is that the respondents have chosen to initiate the charge memo on 17.06.2016 for certain alleged act of grave dereliction of duty and failure to maintain absolute integrity and behavior in a manner unbecoming of an employee of DDA related to construction of HIG Houses in Dwarka, Delhi which were constructed in the year 1998 - 2000. The main Articles of Charge issued against the applicant are as under:-
"ARTICLE-1 The said Shri U.K. Yadav, Asstt. Engr., while functioning as JE/SED-11 allowed the execution of substandard quality of RCC work for various RCC members as is evident from the report of M/s National Council of Cement and Building Material (NCCBM) engaged for the purpose of distress assessment of these flats.
ARTICLE-2 3 The said Shri U.K. Yadav, Asstt. Engr., while functioning as JE/SED-11 failed to ensure that adequate clear cover is provided to reinforcing steel bars which resulted in rusting and corrosion of steel and cracking of concrete.
ARTICLE-3 The said Shri U.K. Yadav, Asstt. Engr., while functioning as JE/SED-11 allowed the use of water which was not fit for construction purpose as is evident from high chloride content in samples collected by M/s NCCBM. Shri U.K. Yadav, Asstt. Engr. (the then JE/SED-11/DDA) by his above act, exhibited grate dereliction of duty, failed to maintain absolute integrity and behaved in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Authority thereby, violating sub rule 1(i) & 1(iii) of Regulation-4 of D.D.A. Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999."
2. It is pertinent to note that immediately upon issue of charge memo dated 17.06.2016, the applicant had rushed before this Tribunal and obtained an interim relief on 29.08.2016 and the said interim order of this Tribunal stating that "further action pursuant to the impugned charge sheet dated 17.06.2016 shall remain in abeyance." continues even now.
3. The main grounds taken by the applicant in the OA for seeking the following reliefs under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:- 4
"(i) To quash and set aside the Charge memo No. F-27 (07)/2015/EE(Vig.)VII/DDA 6237 dated 17.06.2016 and direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant withheld on account of said proceeding.
(ii) To allow the present O.A. with cost on the Respondents."
are that: (A) the charge sheet is badly affected by delay as alleged construction of HIG houses took place in the year 1998 - 2001 and after a period of 18 years, the charge sheet is being served upon the applicant; (B) the said charge has been issued in a malafide manner with the sole intention to deprive the applicant from his retirement benefits as charge memo was issued to him just when he had 1 month and 14 days for his retirement; (C) Due to this inordinate delay on the part of the respondents, it will be difficult for the applicant at this distant point in time to pick up all the threads with regard to the steps that he would have taken to defend himself had the charge sheet been issued to him immediately after the alleged act of misdemeanor; (D) the respondents are neither having any relevant documents nor any witness to proof the allegations. Although the above grounds have been taken by the applicant for 5 quashing the said charge memo, the predominant ground/reason, which is occurring again and again in the OA filed by the applicant is that the charge memo is badly delayed and only on that account, it deserves to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently denies the arguments advanced by the applicant's counsel and states that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant immediately after it was brought to the notice of the Vigilance Branch of the DDA by the Chief Engineer (Dwarka) about the poor quality of SFS flats constructed in Dwarka, New Delhi which resulted in distress of the flats. When the misconduct on the part of the applicant came to light, he was immediately charge sheeted and there has been no delay in issuance of the charge sheet. He also states that the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were initiated against the applicant after the lapses on the part of the applicant and other officials came to light and National Council for Cement and Building Material (NCCBM) was tasked by the respondents to access the extent of distress in the construction and to suggest remedial measures. 6 Thereafter the respondents decided to examine the lapses on the part of its officials, including the applicant. The lapses on the part of the applicant along with the concerned officials came to light only after the matter was looked into and investigated by the Vigilance Department of DDA. He also submits that the applicant was responsible for proper supervision and to ensure that the construction raised is of the desired quality which he has failed to discharge. He also submits that the charge sheet has been issued to other officials also along with the applicant to whom lapses are attributable.
5. We have patiently heard the submissions made by both the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, perused the papers available on the file. We see that it is not only this applicant, but five other officials of the respondent organization were also proceeded against by the issuance of charge memo for the same lapse for which this applicant has also been charge sheeted. The concerned officials, who were charge sheeted, had filed the following OAs before this Tribunal and they are enumerated below:- 7
Sr. OA Direction(s) of CAT, No. PB, Delhi
1. OA No. 2592/2016 8. We, therefore, (Vijay Ku. Saluja dispose of the OA Vs. DDA declining to interfere with the charge memo but directing that the proceedings shall be resumed and concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and that the IO as well as the DDA shall also take into account, the various pleases raised by the applicant.
2. W.P.(C) NO. 10. Accordingly, the 799/2021 present writ petition is (Vijay Ku. Saluja dismissed along with Vs. DDA the pending application. However, it is clarified that the observations made in the present order are only for deciding the present writ petition.
None of the
observations in the
said order, including
on the aspect of
prejudice, if any
caused to the
petitioner due to
alleged delay in
issuance of Charge
Memo, shall prejudice
the petitioner in the
ongoing inquiry.
3. OA No. 3646/2016 8. We, therefore,
(P.C. Verma Vs. dispose of the OA
DDA) declining to interfere
with the charge
memorandum, but
directing that the
proceedings shall be
resumed and
concluded within a
period of six months
8
from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order,
and that the
authorities shall take
into account, the
various pleases raised
by the applicant.
4. OA No. 2914/2016 9. Accordingly, on the
(B.P. Solanki Vs. analogy of OA No. DDA) 2592/2016, the present OA is also disposed of without interfering in the impugned charge sheet. However, a direction is issued to the respondents to ensure completion of disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. The applicant shall be at liberty to raise whatever plea he wishes, before the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority.
5. OA No. 3656/2017 6. From the bare (Deepak Jain Vs. perusal of the charge DDA) memo, it is evident that the allegation with reference to the works which were said to have taken place during the year 1994-
97. Twenty years after the so called executin of work, the respondents propose to conduct an inquiry.
Since the allegation pertains to the utilization of the quality of steel and the method of reinforcement, naturally one must have access to such 9 work to prove the guilt or innocence. The same would not be available at this stage.
Even the record would not be available. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the disciplinary proceedings into stale matters cannot be permitted against employees.
7. We, therefore, allow the OA and set aside the charge memo.
There shall be no order as to costs.
6. RA No. 11/2022 8. At this stage, it is (Deepak jain Vs. worthwhile mentioning DDA)` that even the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 25.10.2001 observed in para 5.1 that though the liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a review, this Tribunal is directed to decide the same applying the principles of law, as stated above.
9. We are of the view that the present RA is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
6. As evident from the above table, it is seen that only in the case of Shri Deepak Jain (supra), the Tribunal had given relief on the ground of inordinate delay in 10 filing the charge sheet which is the same ground raised by the present applicant. However, the respondents had initially approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble High Court had remanded the matter back to the Tribunal giving relief to the respondents to file a Review Application which, too, was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 31.01.2023. Aggrieved by the action of the Tribunal in not reviewing the order in OA No. 3656/2017, the respondents once again have approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 5026/2024, which has vide its interim order dated 02.05.2024, has stayed the order of the review and the order in OA No. 3656/2017. Regarding other three officials of the DDA, who had filed the OA Nos. 2592/2016, 3646/2016 and 2914/2016, the Tribunal had declined to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the concerned officials, stating that the ground of delay and all other grounds raised by them could be raised while facing disciplinary proceedings.
7. Inasmuch as all these charge-sheets, including the impugned order in this OA, which is under challenge, stem out of the same construction of SFS housing in 11 Dwarka during the period 1998 - 2001 and from perusal of the tabular sheet enumerated above, it is seen that all the judgments issued by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal have declined to interfere with the departmental proceedings. Therefore, we are also inclined to go along with the same judgments of the Co- ordinate Benches of this Tribunal.
8. Under the facts and circumstances as stated above, we dispose of this OA, declining to interfere with the charge memo and directing the respondents to resume and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, liberty is given to the applicant to raise whatever pleas he wishes to take before the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. No order as to costs.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member(J) /lg/