Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Avdhesh Kumar Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors on 15 December, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH : NEW DELHI Original Application No.999/2011 New Delhi, this the 15th day of December, 2011 Coram: Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Shri Avdhesh Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Hari Shankar Sharma, R/o 148, Chander Lok, Pitampura, New Delhi 110034 Applicant (By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors:- 1. Through its Commissioner, MCD, Minto Road, Civic Centre, Delhi 2. Addl. Commissioner (Engineering), MCD, Civic Centre, Minto Road, Delhi Respondents (By Advocate: Shri B. Shekhar) O R D E R
By Dr. Veena Chhotray:
The applicant is working as a Junior Engineer in the MCD. This OA, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, seeks a relief at the interlocutory stage by challenging the impugned charge memorandum dated 26.3.2010. Since as per the applicant, on this very account his promotion as Assistant Engineer (Civil) has not been done, a direction for promoting him as such from the date of his junior with all consequential benefits has also been sought.
2. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the applicant vide the Charge Memorandum dated 26.3.2010. The statement of charges framed, reads as here under:
Shri Avdesh Kumar Sharma while working as Jr. Engineer in Bldg. Deptt., C.L. Zone remained incharge of the area of Kashmere Gate w.e.f. 2.9.2004 to 9.11.2004. He failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and committed gross misconduct on the following counts:
He failed to stop/demolish the unauthorized construction carried out in property No.1300-1318, R.B. Sultan Singh Building, Kashmere Gate and booked on 24.6.2008 at its initial/ongoing stage.
He also failed to timely book the unauthorized construction for taking action u/s 343/344 of DMC Act.
He also failed to initiate action for sealing the unauthorized construction u/s 345-A and for prosecution of the owner/builder u/s 332/461 or466-A of DMC Act.
He also failed to take action against the owner/builder for misuse of the property during his working tenure.
He also failed to recover the misuse charges from the owner/builder during his working tenure thereby causing huge financial loss to MCD.
He, hereby, contravened Rule 3 (I)(i)(ii)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as made applicable to the employees of MCD. The enclosed Statement of Imputation reveals that the matter in this case had been investigated on receipt of a complaint in July, 2008, through the Office of the Lt. Governor of Delhi. As per the investigation, the building plan had been sanctioned in July 1998 for residential purpose and the revised plan sanctioned in November, 1998. The completion certificate was issued on 14.1.1999.
It is further stated that soon after issuance of completion certificate the unauthorized construction was noticed and first booked on 12.4.1999. The subsequent trajectory of events, including a stay order from the Delhi High Court from 26.4.1999 till 27.2.2003, span the long period from 1999 to 2008. Various acts of omission in respect of requisite actions required to be taken by the concerned authorities, from time to time, as per law in the matter of unauthorized constructions, have been narrated.
3. In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents would make a submission that MCD was taking action against all the officials involved in the process.
4. While the applicants learned counsel would have a number of submissions to make to challenge the impugned charge memorandum; we find that even ex facie the charges in this case are not specific. Admittedly, the applicant had remained Incharge of the area in question for a brief period of a little more than 2 months i.e. w.e.f. 2.9.2004 to 9.11.2004. However, the charge for omission to take requisite action in respect of the unauthorized constructions had spanned several years from 1999 to 2008. The impugned charges, without mentioning the specific lapses on the part of the applicant during the period in question, relates only omnibus charges generally applicable to all the officials concerned in the matter during this entire period.
5. In Union of India vs Lt. Col. Jagdev Singh {1993 (2) SLR 460} Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court (DB) had reiterated the well settled law:
A charge sheet must disclose with adequate clarity and precision the charge levelled against the employee. This requirement is one of the essential adjuncts of the concept of a reasonable and adequate opportunity of defending oneself.
While emphasizing that whether a charge-sheet in a given case is vague or not will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Honble High Court had held:
Where having regard to the text of the charge-sheet or the accompanying statement, it is difficult for the charged employee to put forward the defence, the charge-sheet and the proceedings would have to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Thus, without going into other contentions raised on behalf of the applicant, we find the impugned charge memorandum suffering from the legal infirmity of vagueness and thus being in violation of the principles of natural justice. The charge memorandum in its present form is accordingly not found to be sustainable in law.
7. Resultantly, we allow this OA partly. The impugned charge memorandum is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents would, however, be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Surely, if the respondents may make up their mind to still proceed against the applicant, they will certainly take into consideration the brief period of the applicants tenure in the assignment in question and the time lag between the delinquency and the suggested action. No orders as to costs.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (V.K. Bali)
Member (A) Chairman
/pkr/