Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Krishan Murari vs The Lt. Governor on 8 December, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 2415/2009 New Delhi, this the 8th day of December, 2009 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman(A) Sh. Krishan Murari, S/o late Sh. K. Prasad, R/o G-97, Vijay Vihar, Phase-I, Rithala, New Delhi. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj) Versus 1. The Lt. Governor, Delhi, Chairman DDA, Raj Niwas, Delhi. 2. The Vice Chairman, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. 3. The Commissioner (Pers.) DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Rajinder Khattar) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Krishan Murari, a UDC with Delhi Development Authority, applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal, 1985 calling in question charge memo dated 10.08.2009 (Annexure A-1) and holding of regular departmental enquiry against him. The charge against the applicant, which is Article-I annexed with the Original Application, reads as follows:-
ARTICLE-I Shri Krishan Murari, Assistant while working as UDC in Housing Accounts Wing during the year 1998-2000 recommended the downward revision of the cost of the flat on old cost basis and refunded difference of cost without approval of the Competent Authority and for a specific amount in respect of SFS flat no. 33, Cat II, FF, Pkt.F, Sheikh Sarai in violation of instructions issued vide office order no.PS/CH/DDA/96/150 dated 16.8.96 and no. HAU-IX/Delay/98/DDA/40-N dated 31.3.99 despite of the fact that the cancellation/regularization of the said flat was restored/regularized by the Principal (Commissioner), DDA on 4.9.98 i.e. much after the cut off date of 22.8.96 envisaged in order dt. 31.3.99 which resulted in undue refund to Sh. Amrit Lal Aggarwal allottee and thereby caused financial loss to the tune of Rs.5,25,485/- to the Authority.
By his above acts Shri Krishan Murari, Assistant exhibited lack of absolute devotion to duty, lack of absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby contravened Rule 4 1(i), (ii) and (iii) of DDA Conduct Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999 as made applicable to the employees of the Authority.
2. Primarily, the charge memo has been challenged on the ground of unexplained delay, the same having been issued on 10.8.2009 pertaining to the alleged misconduct of the applicant while he was working as UDC in housing accounts wing during the period 1998-2000.
3. The respondents, pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal have entered appearance and filed their reply wherein, it has inter alia been pleaded that the housing scam 1999-2000 rocked the news in the year 2000 when the scandal relating to crores of rupees was detected, as a result of which the records were initially seized by the crime branch of Delhi Police and the matter investigated at their end. Initially, 48 cases of SFS flats pertaining to the housing scam 1999-2000, out of 119 cases seized, were subsequently returned to DDA by the crime branch with the observations that DDA had suffered financial losses due to negligence on the part of the officials of housing accounts wing as well as housing management wing. Accordingly, it was recommended that responsibility may be fixed and it may be indicated if the lapses are of departmental nature or otherwise. Out of 48 cases returned by the crime branch, initially 13 cases of downward revision of cost of flats and their refund were identified and sent to the vigilance wing in the year 2000 with prior approval of FM/VC, and further 20 more cases were referred to the vigilance cell in June, 2006. In each case after detailed investigations, more than 70 chargesheets were issued to various officials of the housing management wing and the housing accounts wing. Out of these 20 cases referred to the vigilance cell in 2006, the applicant is one of the officials to whom chargesheet for initiation of major penalty proceedings has been issued after conducting detailed investigations, obtaining call versions, seeking view of the disciplinary authority, seeing advice of CVC etc. It is then pleaded that there is no bar for initiation of penalty proceedings against any official during currency of service, irrespective of the fact as to which year the lapse pertains to, and that even proceedings can be initiated after retirement of the official if the event relates to a period of not more than four years, and further that the chargesheet to the applicant was issued in a time-frame manner only after carrying out detailed investigations and after seeking the view of the disciplinary authority and as per the advice of CVC, and that there is no procedural delay. What appears from the explanation for delay furnished by the respondents is that the housing scandal came to be unearthed in the year 2000. The records were seized by the crime branch of Delhi Police and the matter was investigated at their end. 48 cases out of 119 were returned to DDA by the crime branch to fix responsibility. Out of the 48 cases returned by the crime branch, 13 cases of downward revision of cost of flats and their refund were identified in 2000, and 20 cases were referred to the vigilance cell in June, 2006. The case, insofar as the applicant is concerned, was out of the 20 cases referred to the vigilance in 2006. The charge memo, as referred to above, came to be served on the applicant on 10.8.2009. Why only 13 out of 48 cases were identified and why no recommendation was made with regard to other cases, there is no explanation. Once, the crime branch had returned 48 cases to DDA requiring it to fix responsibility and to find out if the lapses were departmental or otherwise in nature, DDA ought to have worked on all the cases. Why 20 cases which included the case of the applicant as well, were sent to the vigilance cell in 2006 when they were received or returned by crime branch in 2000, there is no explanation. Why during 2006 to 2009 no action was taken, and, as mentioned above, the charge memo came to be issued only on 10.8.2009, there is no explanation for that as well.
4. Learned counsel representing the applicant in support of the Application has referred to judgments recorded by this Tribunal on similar charges regarding which charge memos were issued to the employees at belated stage. In OA No.2525/2008 decided on 30.10.2009 in the matter of Ved Prakash v DDA, the allegation was that the recommendations of the applicant had ultimately resulted in undue refund to private parties who had been allotted residential houses during 1990s. The charge memo having come to be issued after ten years, the Tribunal quashed the same and the explanation furnished by the respondents that on coming to know certain defects, vigilance enquiry was ordered and that authorization was to come from the vigilance for continuing with the proceedings, was rejected. The learned counsel also relied upon decision in OA No.829/2009 dated 12.10.2009 in the matter of R. P. Tripathi v DDA, wherein the allegation in the charge memo was that while working as UDC in the housing accounts wing during the years 1998-2000 the applicant had processed cases for refund of belated construction interest and later on had refunded the bill without approval of the competent authority, causing financial loss to the tune of Rs.86,480/-. The explanation for delay in issuing the charge memo after nine years was not accepted. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.1570/2009 with connected OA No.1578/2009 in the matter of Mohinder Kumar v DDA, wherein the employee, an accountant in the housing accounts wing, during 1998-2000 was alleged to have recommended revision of cost of seven flats on old cost basis and also of refund of cost difference, without approval of the competent authority. The explanation for delay that was furnished in the said case was that the crime branch had registered a few cases concerning the housing scam and the applicant was one of the officers involved and that criminal proceedings were going on, and the chargesheet was issued after detailed investigations. The explanation furnished in the said case, although on the same lines as the one in the present case, was not considered to be adequate and the charge memo was quashed. Learned counsel representing the respondents could not make any distinction in the cases referred to above, and, in particular, OA Nos.1570/2009 and 1578/2009, with the present case, nor is it even his stand that such judgments have been challenged or are even likely to be challenged by DDA. We find no reasons to take a view different than the one taken by this Tribunal in the judgments referred to above, and, in particular, in OA Nos.1570/2009 and 1578/2009.
5. For parity of reasons given in the judgments referred to above and, in particular, in OA Nos.1570/2009 and 1578/2009, this Original Application is also allowed. Charge memo dated 10.8.2009 is accordingly quashed and set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
(L.K. Joshi) (V.K. Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /as/