Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Duli Chand vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 21 July, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.1309/2008 New Delhi this the 21st day of July, 2009. Hon'ble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Duli Chand, Assistant Engineer (M), M.D.I. (Irrigation & Flood Control Department), Government of N.C.T. Delhi. -Applicant (By Advocate None) -Versus- Govt. of NCT of Delhi, through 1. The Secretary, Irrigation & Food Control, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, 5/9, Under Hill Road, Delhi. 2. The Chief Engineer (I&F), 4th Floor, I.S.B.T. Building, Kashmere Gate, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, Delhi. 3. The Executive Engineer MD-III, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, L.M. Band, Krishan Kunj, Delhi-110 092. --Respondents (By Advocate None) O R D E R Hon'ble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J):
Applicant through this OA seeks fixation of pay and grant of benefit of upgradation under ACP Scheme with arrears.
2. Applicant, who had been appointed under ST category as a Junior Engineer in Delhi Administration was placed under suspension on 22.8.1987 for a criminal offence and subsequently a chargesheet dated 8.11.1988 in the departmental enquiry was issued to him. However, the suspension was revoked on 17.11.1988. A report was submitted by the enquiry officer (EO) on 28.8.1995 but was kept on hold and was ultimately served upon him on 27.11.2000. A penalty of reduction of pay by three stages in the time scale of pay with cumulative effect for a period of three years was imposed on 21.3.2002. Meanwhile, applicant on completion of five years regular service as JE like others became eligible for fixation in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 but was denied due to the disciplinary proceedings and ultimately on acceptance of V Central Pay Commissions recommendations applicants pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 whereas his colleagues were fixed in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. After 15 years of service applicant like others became eligible to be placed in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 pre-revised. Applicant was granted regular promotion as Assistant Engineer on 14.9.2006 and had become eligible on completion of 12 years service for first financial upgradation as on 5.11.1995 w.e.f. 9.8.1989. The representation preferred when not replied, the present OA has been filed by applicant.
3. None appeared for the applicant as well as respondents. OA is, therefore, proceeded exparte under Rules 15 and 16 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
4. Applicant states that by non-according fixation in the relevant pay scales without any basis is not legally tenable. It is stated that holding the enquiry belatedly and keeping it in abeyance has greatly prejudiced the applicant. It is also one of the grievances that applicants suspension has also not been decided.
5. On the other hand, respondents in their reply stated that applicants replacement scale was revised to Rs.5000-8000 and his pay was fixed w.e.f. 7.12.2004 and as he has been facing a disciplinary proceeding, ACP was not given and as he has been awarded a penalty, the same benefit is not admissible. As applicant was punished, the suspension period is not unjustifiable
6. We have carefully considered the rival pleadings in the OA. An order passed by the respondents on 7.12.2004 fixed the pay of applicant but for want of challenge to the penalty imposed upon him we find that as per FR 29 as to which date the penalty has to take effect has not been given, yet it has been taken prospectively from 21.3.2002, whereas the enquiry was initiated in 1988 and the enquiry report was firstly served in 1995 and then in 2002. There has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in conclusion of the proceedings. Had this penalty been made effective from 1995 applicant would have been able to draw his upgradation under ACP as well as other benefits of pay scales, which had been accrued to him and given to others. The pay scale and period of suspension have not been decided. In the above view of the matter, the request of the applicant requires re-consideration as to effectiveness of the penalty from a retrospective date by the respondents as well as release of his ACP and fixation in the pay scales on completion of 5 and 15 years of service. A penalty could be a bar but it has to be inflicted at the right time. A delay of about 15 years in concluding the proceedings has certainly prejudiced applicant without any fault attributable to him.
7. Resultantly, OA stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to re-consider the claim of applicant, in the light of our observations for grant of benefits, as prayed for, by a speaking order to be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju) Member (A) Member (J) San.