Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shaheen Ahmed Neyazi vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 5 December, 2019
1
OA No.895/2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No. 895/2014
New Delhi, this the 5th day of December, 2019
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Shri Shaheen Ahmed Neyazi
S/o Shri Husain Ahmed Neyazi
R/o B-148, Zaidi Gali, Mandawali
Fazalpur, Delhi-91.
.. Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Rajeev Sharma)
Versus
1. Lt. Governor
Raj Niwas, Civil Lines
Delhi.
2. East Delhi Municipal Corporation
(Through its Commissioner)
Patpar Ganj Industrial Area
Delhi.
3. The Commissioner
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Patpar Ganj Industrial Area
Delhi.
.. Respondents
(By Advocates : Shri R.K. Shukla)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman The applicant was working as Junior Engineer in the East Delhi Municipal Corporation in the year 2009. He 2 OA No.895/2014 was issued a Charge Memorandum dated 16.03.2009, alleging that he became instrumental in according sanction for a building plan, contrary to the Regulations pertaining to sub-division of Plots. Similar proceedings were initiated against some other officials also.
2. The applicant submitted an explanation denying the charges. Not satisfied with that, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) appointed the Inquiry Officer (IO). The IO submitted his report dated 20.04.2011, holding the charges against the applicant as „proved‟. The report was made available to the applicant and after receiving his comments on that, the DA passed an order dated 01.03.2012, imposing the penalty of „reduction in pay in the time scale by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect‟. Appeal preferred by the applicant was rejected by the Appellate Authority (AA), through order dated 16.01.2014. This O.A. is filed challenging the order of punishment order passed by the DA, as approved by the AA.
3. The applicant contends that he received an application for sanction of a building plan in respect of a 3 OA No.895/2014 plot, and he forwarded the matter to the Junior Law Officer (JLO) of the Corporation; and on the basis of the advice rendered by the latter, he sanctioned the plan. He submits that there was no circular or manual which mandated that the plan must be circulated to the Town Planning Department (TPD), and that the very charge levelled against him was without any basis. He further submits that the IO has drawn inferences and held the charges as proved. He complains that the JLO, whose opinion became instrumental, was not punished, whereas he was punished.
4. Respondents filed a counter affidavit opposing the O.A. It is stated that the matter pertaining to the sub- division of plots is in the exclusive purview of the TPD, and despite that, the applicant has chosen to mark the file to JLO and then to sanction the building plan. It is further stated that the applicant was accorded adequate opportunity at every level and the IO submitted his report strictly in accordance with the rules. It is stated that the penalty imposed on the applicant is commensurate with the gravity of the charges, held proved against him. 4 OA No.895/2014
5. We heard Shri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The misconduct alleged against the applicant is on following counts:
"1. He failed to refer the case of property No.35-UA, Jawahar Nagar to TP Deptt. for comments before giving sanction to the Bldg. Plan although the fact of sub-division was well in his knowledge.
2. He failed to take any proper action on the complaint of Dr. J.D. Babbar who brought to the notice of Dy.Cm./S.P. Zone all the facts regarding sub-division and court case vide his letter dated 9.6.2008.
3. He also failed to proceed further on the show cause notice issued to the applicant Smt. Shukla Chawla on 26.6.2008."
7. The applicant submitted the explanation and not satisfied with that, the IO was appointed and taking into account, the report submitted by the IO, punishment was imposed. The gravity of the charges against the applicant pertains to the sub-division of a plot. Sanction of layout and sub-division of the plots in the layout is in exclusive province of the TPD. Resolutions were also passed by the concerned Agency, indicating the circumstances under which the sub-division of plot can be 5 OA No.895/2014 recognised and the manner in which the sub-division can be approved. The applicant received a request for sanction of a plan in respect of a plot, which was sub-divided. By that time, there existed certain norms indicating the circumstances under which the sub-division can be recognised. If any doubt was entertained in this behalf, the only course open to the applicant was to refer the matter to the TPD. However, he sent it to the JLO.
8. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against all the concerned officials, including the JLO. In the course of inquiry, the JLO admitted that he did not have any document before him, when he gave the opinion. He further stated that it is only the TPD, that can express its opinion in the matter of this nature. The applicant is not able to state that there existed any circular, which enabled him to refer the matter to the JLO.
9. The IO took all these aspects into account and held the charges as proved. The applicant is not able to point out any factual or legal defect in the proceedings. We, therefore, agree with the conclusion arrived at by the IO. The DA cannot be said to have committed any factual or 6 OA No.895/2014 legal mistakes. What, however, becomes noteworthy is that the JLO, whose opinion became instrumental for the applicant, was left without any penalty, whereas certain other officers are penalised. We are of the view that the imbalance caused in this regard can be rectified by treating the punishment imposed against the applicant as the one without cumulative effect.
10. The O.A. is partly allowed and the penalty imposed against the applicant though the impugned order, shall be treated as the one, without any cumulative effect. Necessary corrective steps in this regard shall be taken within two months. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) Member (A) Chairman /jyoti/