Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Vinod Kumar Ahuja vs Delhi Development Authority Through on 23 November, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 3389/2009 New Delhi, this the 23rd day of November, 2009 Honble Mr. Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman Honble Mr. L.K. Joshi,Vice Chairman (A) Sh. Vinod Kumar Ahuja, Asst. Engineer (Civil) Asst. Engineer Civil Circle-II, Mangla Puri, Dwarka, New Delhi. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Malaya Chand) Versus 1. Delhi Development Authority through: The Vice Chairman, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. 2. Commissioner (P) Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. 3. Engineer Member, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. Respondents ORDER (ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:
Sequel to departmental enquiry the applicant was inflicted punishment of censure, vide order dated 31.03.2004. This order came to be challenged by the applicant by way of an appeal, which was filed on 24.03.2008 i.e. almost four years after the impugned order was passed. When the appeal was not being disposed of, the applicant filed Original Application No.1008/2009, which came to be disposed of by this Tribunal, vide orders dated 20.04.2009. The short order recorded at motion stage without hearing the respondentsDDA, reads as follows:-
Learned counsel for applicant confines his relief for disposal of the appeal filed by him, which is stated to be pending with the department. A copy of the appeal dated 24.3.2008 is annexure to A-3. As it was evident that appeal is belated, counsel submits it will be proper that appropriate authority namely, Engineer Member be directed to look into the matter and come up with the order, in accordance with law, including on the issue of maintainability.
2. As disposal of an appeal is essentially within the jurisdictional powers of appellate authority, we dispose of this OA with a direction to Engineer Member to advert of the said appeal including issue of maintainability within a period of three months from today. We do not think it will be necessary to issue notice as we have not gone to the merits of the case at all.
3. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order as well as copy of the Original Application to the respondent for compliance.
2. The appellate authority rejected the appeal of the applicant, vide order dated 24.09.2009 primarily for the reason that the same has been filed after lapse of four years and no sufficient cause for condoning the delay has been shown. The relevant part of the order reads as follows:-
AND WHEREAS the undersigned being the Appellate Authority considered the appeal of Sh. V.K. Ahuja, JE (now AE) dt.24.3.09 filed after a lapse of more than four years of penalty order dt.31.3.04. Sh. V.K. Ahuja, JE (now AE) has not adduced sufficient cause of delay and no new argument of fact, which could warrant re-consideration of the matter. The appeal has thus no merit and end of justice would be met if the same is rejected.
NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned being the Appellate Authority having taken all facts and circumstances of the case in to account and considering the in-ordinate delay in submission of the appeal that too without adducing sufficient cause for delay is of the view that the penalty imposed vide order dt. 31.3.04 is just. The appeal thus stands rejected.
3. Even though in the first para of the order reproduced above, it may appear that the appellate authority also found no merit in the appeal otherwise as well. However, as mentioned above, it is quite apparent that the appeal has been dismissed primarily for the reason that the same is highly belated. Admittedly, no separate application seeking condonation of delay was filed before the appellate authority. In the memorandum of appeal, however, there is an averment giving reasons for filing the appeal at a belated stage. Para No. 4 of memorandum of appeal, which may be relevant, reads as follows:-
4. That this appeal is not filed within the stipulated period of 45 days as stipulated in Regulation 32-C of the said Regulations due to the reason that the penalty was the lowest amongst the minor penalties but I could not anticipate its consequential effects of grant of ACP which had resulted loss of lacs of rupees due to delayed grant of ACP because of penalty of Censure. Therefore, the Appellant prefers for the said condonation of this appeal.
4. Having no knowledge of consequential effect of the order of punishment is thus the only reason seeking condonation of delay. In our considered view, ignorance in law would be no excuse to seek condonation of delay. The applicant was to show some sufficient reasons which prevented him to file the appeal in time, but no such circumstances were even remotely mentioned in the memorandum of appeal. No doubt, it is true that the appellate authority has not referred to the reasons given by the applicant seeking condonation of delay, as mentioned above in para no. 4, and given no finding thereon. It has only stated that sufficient reasons are not forthcoming. That, however, in our view, would not be deterrent from the orders passed by the appellate authority. Once we have found that the reason given by the applicant seeking condonation of delay does not appear to be sufficient, we find no merit in this Original Application and the same is dismissed in limine.
(L.K. Joshi) (V.K. Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /naresh/