Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Chaman Lal vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 15 February, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-99/2012
Reserved on : 12.02.2013.
Pronounced on :15.02.2013.
Honble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Sh. Chaman Lal,
S/o Sh. Balwant Singh,
R/o F-36, MCD Flats,
Double Storey, Mahar Chand
Market, Lodhi Colony,
New Delhi. . Applicant
(through Sh. Nilansh Gaur, Advocate)
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation through
Its Commissioner
4th Level, Dr. SPM Civic Centre,
JLN Marg, New Delhi-110002. . Respondents
(through Sh. R.K. Shukla, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicant has sought quashing of the charge sheet issued to him on 29.04.2010.
2. Facts of the case are that applicant joined MCD as Junior Engineer on 01.09.1988. On 15.03.1999 he was promoted as Assistant Engineer. During the period from 15.05.2003 to 11.02.2004 and again from 20.02.2004 to 18.04.2004 the applicant was working in Building Department of Karol Bagh Zone and was incharge of New Rajinder Nagar area. Pursuant to the directions of the Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 4582/2003 vide orders dated 24.04.2006 one Shri Pushkar Sood was appointed as Court Commissioner of Karol Bagh Zone and directed to identify the engineers and officers responsible for permitting unauthorized construction. During investigations made, it was noticed that, inter alia, unauthorized construction had taken place in Property No. C-103, New Rajinder Nagar. A charge sheet was issued to the applicant on 22.08.2007 in which the charge was that the applicant had failed to stop deviations against sanctioned building plans at basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and projection on mpl. land in the said property. He was also charged for failing to book the aforesaid deviations u/s 343/344 of DMC Act. Further, he was also charged for failing to exercise proper control and supervision over the functioning of Sh. Sunil Chawla and Sh. V.K. Singhal, JEs (Bldg.). The applicant was awarded a major penalty in this case, which was reduced to minor penalty in appeal. The grievance of the applicant is that he has been issued another charge sheet on 29.04.2010 (impugned order) for unauthorized construction in the same property. The applicant has contended that this amounts to double jeopardy and, therefore, the charge sheet needs to be quashed. He has stated that he has been filing several representations before the respondents but has not received any reply. Aggrieved by the same, he has preferred this O.A.
3. The respondents, on the other hand, have stated that this is not a case of double jeopardy. According to them even though the property is the same, the first charge sheet pertained to unauthorized construction in basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor whereas the second charge sheet pertains to unauthorized construction on the third floor.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the Junior Engineer Sh. V.K. Singhal involved in this case along with the applicant was also treated in identical manner by the respondents and had also been served two charge sheets identical to the charge sheet served on the applicant. Learned counsel stated that Sh. Singhal had approached this Tribunal by filing OA-4232/2011, which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 28.02.2011, operative part of the judgment reads as follows:-
6. We are aware of the fact that the judicial intervention at interlocutory stage is resorted to extremely sparingly and only on well deserved grounds. Therefore, this OA is disposed with a direction to the Commissioner (MCD) to decide the representation of the applicant dated 25.2.2011, along with the averments in the present OA by a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Thereafter, in pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal the representation of Sh. Singhal was considered by the respondents and it was decided to drop the second charge sheet vide their order N0.1/257/2006/Vig./P/GKG/2012/1080 dated 03.08.2012. Learned counsel for the applicant made available to us a copy of the judgment of the Tribunal as well as Office Order passed by the respondents. On perusal of the material made available to us, we have come to the conclusion that the cases of the applicant and Sh. V.K. Singhal were identical. However, in the instant case, the applicant stated that he had not received any reply to his representations made before the respondents. The respondents counsel stated that the representations of the applicant had been decided but was unable to produce a copy of the order passed on these representations. We, therefore, summoned the original records of the respondents and perused the same. We found that while deciding the representations, the respondents have failed to take cognizance of the fact that first charge sheet was issued to the applicant on the basis of inspection conducted by the Court Commissioner in 2006. In that charge sheet, there was no mention of constructions going on at third floor also. It has also not been disputed by the respondents that the applicant was posted in that area only upto 18.04.2004. If the unauthorized construction was not noticed in an inspection conducted in 2006 then in all probabilities this unauthorized construction would have taken place only after 2006 i.e. much after the period during which the applicant was posted in that area. Even if it is presumed that the third floor was being unauthorizedly constructed along with other floors during the tenure of the applicant, the respondents should have in all fairness to the applicant included the charge of unauthorized construction on third floor also along with the unauthorized construction on basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor. By not doing so, they have split one charge into two and have issued separate charge sheets for them. A perusal of the record of the respondents reveals that they do not have any material to establish at what time this construction took place. If this is so, it would again be unfair to penalize the applicant for the same when admittedly he had moved out from that area on transfer in 2004 itself.
6. In view of above, we come to the conclusion that interest of justice would be served if the respondents are directed to once again look at the representations of the applicant in the light of observations made above and in the light of the case of his subordinate Sh. V.K. Singhal, Junior Engineer. They are directed to decide the same by means of a speaking order within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Accordingly, this O.A. is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (V. Ajay Kumar)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Vinita/