Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Kumar Makkar vs Union Of India Through on 13 December, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.2361/2010 This the 13th day of December, 2010 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) Anil Kumar Makkar, Executive Engineer (Civil) S/O Bhagat Ram, C/O R-69, Flat N.5, Klarkhi Extension, New Delhi. Applicant ( By Shri Ashish Nischal, Advocate ) Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. Respondent ( By Mrs. Lata Gangwani for Shri H. K. Gangwani, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Anil Kumar Makkar, Executive Engineer (Civil), through present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 calls in question memorandum dated 16.3.2010, vide which the concerned authorities have decided to hold an enquiry against him under rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour on which the applicant is to be departmentally tried, would find mention in Annexure-I appended to the memorandum aforesaid, which reads as follows:
That the said Shri Anil Kumar Makkar, while functioning as Assistant Engineer (Civil), Bikaner Central Division, Central Public Works Department, Bikaner, during the period 1997-98, and as the Assistant Engineer in charge of the work of 20 Nos. Light/Medium Vehicle garages at SHQ, BSF, Bikaner under the Agreement No.60/EE/BCD/96-97, got the said work executed in the absence of approved structural design/drawing, and ignoring the provisions in the Technically Sanctioned Estimates, and even the architectural drawings supplied by BSF, and further failed to effectively control/supervise the work during its execution, which resulted in cracks in the beams and roof slabs as well as in the brick masonry below the RCC roof beams of all the garages, and entailed extra expenditure incurred on repairs/remedial measures to stop development of fresh cracks in the structures; thereby violating Section-5 of CPWD Manual Volume-II (1988 Edition).
2. It would be seen from the article of charge as reproduced above that the applicant is to be proceeded for the lapses alleged to have been committed by him when he was posted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) during the period 1997-98, whereas the charge memo came to be issued on 16.3.2010.
3. When this matter came up before us at motion stage on 27.7.2010, we recorded the following order:
Inter alia contends that the applicant has now been chargesheeted on 16.03.2010 for major penalty with regard to the allegation, which pertains to year 1997-98. On the same allegation, Mr. Deepak Panwar was departmentally tried but this Tribunal vide order dated 21.04.2010 in O.A. No.3167/2009 quashed the chargesheet on the ground of inordinate delay.
Issue notice to respondents returnable on 11.08.2010. Further departmental proceedings are stayed. Process Dasti. Shri Deepak Panwar, a Superintending Engineer, was issued a charge memo on 16.9.2009. The article of charge on which he was tried reads as follows:
That the said Shri Deepak Panwar, while functioning as Executive Engineer (Civil), Bikaner Central Division, Central Public Works Department, Bikaner, during the period 1997-98, and as the Engineer-in-Charge of the work of 20 Nos. Light/Medium Vehicle garages at SHQ, BSF, Bikaner under the Agreement No.60/EE/BCD/96-97, got the said work executed in the absence of approved structural design/drawing, and ignoring the provisions in the Technically Sanctioned Estimates, and even the architectural drawings supplied by BSF, and further failed to effectively control/supervise the work during its execution, which resulted in cracks in the beams and roof slabs as well as in the brick masonry below the RCC roof beams of all the garages, and entailed extra expenditure incurred on repairs/remedial measures to stop development of fresh cracks in the structures; thereby violating Section-5 of CPWD Manual Volume-II (1988 Edition). Shri Panwar had challenged the charge memo aforesaid on the ground of inordinate delay without there being any explanation for the delay. Vide a detailed order dated 21.4.2010 in the OA filed by him bearing No.3167/2009, we quashed the charge memo. While doing so, we took into consideration the defence projected by the respondents, and in particular, the cause of delay, in all its minute details, and while referring to the case law on the issue, passed the order as mentioned above.
4. It could not be disputed during the course of arguments that the article of charge against the applicant as also against Shri Deepak Panwar are exactly the same, and that the defence projected by the respondents in the present case is also the same as was projected in the OA filed by Shri Panwar.
5. For parity of reasons given by us in our order dated 21.4.2010 in OA No.3167/2009, we quash and set aside the charge memo dated 16.3.2010, and accordingly allow the present Application. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/