Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Chand Ram vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 January, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA NO. 1605/2010 OA NO. 1606/2010 OA NO. 1607/2010 OA NO. 1608/2010 OA NO. 1609/2010 Date on which judgment was reserved: 24.01.2011 Date on which judgment was pronounced: 25.01.2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER (J) HONBLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A) OA NO. 1605/2010 Sh. Chand Ram S/o late Sh. Ram Sarup, R/o H-34/14, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Apurb Lal with Sh. Daleep Singh) V E R S U S 1. Delhi Development Authority through its Vice Chairman, Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.Market, New Delhi-110023. 2. The Finance Member, Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.Market, New Delhi-110023. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. Dhanesh Relan) OA NO. 1606/2010 Sh. Chand Ram S/o late Sh. Ram Sarup, R/o H-34/14, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Apurb Lal with Sh. Daleep Singh) V E R S U S 1. Delhi Development Authority through its Vice Chairman, Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.Market, New Delhi-110023. 2. The Finance Member, Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.Market, New Delhi-110023. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. Dhanesh Relan) OA NO. 1607/2010 Sh. Chand Ram S/o late Sh. Ram Sarup, R/o H-34/14, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Apurb Lal with Sh. Daleep Singh) V E R S U S 1. Delhi Development Authority through its Vice Chairman, Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.Market, New Delhi-110023. 2. The Finance Member, Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.Market, New Delhi-110023. 3. Lt. Governor Raj Niwas Marg, Delhi-110054. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. Dhanesh Relan) OA NO. 1608/2010 Sh. Chand Ram S/o late Sh. Ram Sarup, R/o H-34/14, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Apurb Lal with Sh. Daleep Singh) V E R S U S 1. Delhi Development Authority through its Vice Chairman, Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.Market, New Delhi-110023. 2. The Finance Member, Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.Market, New Delhi-110023. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. Dhanesh Relan) OA NO. 1609/2010 Sh. Chand Ram S/o late Sh. Ram Sarup, R/o H-34/14, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. Apurb Lal with Sh. Daleep Singh) V E R S U S 1. Delhi Development Authority through its Vice Chairman, Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.Market, New Delhi-110023. 2. The Finance Member, Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.Market, New Delhi-110023. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. Dhanesh Relan) O R D E R
Justice S.D.Anand:
In view of the consensual position that these OAs involve same set of facts and a common law point, these are taken up together for disposal.
2. The essential grievance, presently pressed into service on behalf of the applicant, is that the orders granted by the disciplinary authority deserve invalidation because the applicant herein was not afforded an opportunity of being heard on point of punishment proposed by the disciplinary authority.
2-A. In order to enable appropriate appreciation of controversy, we may notice that the applicant herein was exonerated by the Enquiring authority of the relevant charge. The disciplinary authority recorded a disagreement note and issued a show cause notice in the context to the applicant. On consideration of the response furnished by the applicant, the disciplinary authority upheld the charge and proceeded to grant the impugned punishment. No show cause notice on the point of proposed punishment was issued by the disciplinary authority.
3. The law on the point was authoritatively laid down by the Apex Court in Lav Nigam Vs. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd. And Anr. (2006 (9) SCC 440). The law, as enunciated therein, is to the effect that the Disciplinary Authority, which records a disagreement note, is obliged not only to first hear the delinquent employee on point of disagreement, it is also required to thereafter hear the employee on point of proposed punishment.
4. In view of the fact that no law authority taking a different view has been cited, we would allow this OA and quash the orders granted by the disciplinary authority. This shall not, however, preclude the disciplinary authority from granting an order afresh in the matter after issuance of a show cause notice qua the proposed punishment to the applicant.
5. Disposed of accordingly.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (S.D. Anand) Member (A) Member (J) `SRD