Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. R.P. Tripathi vs Dda & Ors. Through on 9 April, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. 2166/2008
New Delhi this the 9th day of April, 2009
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J)
Honble Dr. R.C. Panda, Member (A)
Sh. R.P. Tripathi,
S/o Sh. K.P. Tripathi,
R/o Flat No. 9083, LIG Flats,
Vasant Kunj, N. Delhi-70. Applicant.
(By Advocate Shri M.K. Bhardwaj)
VERSUS
DDA & Ors. through:
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 Mrs. P.K. Gupta)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (j).
The two memos issued to the applicant as a prelude for holding domestic inquiry by the DDA are under challenge. The inquiry is yet to commence. Inter alia, the applicant submits that the benefits of the ACP Scheme and due promotions to which he has already become eligible are not liable to be kept back on the basis of the memorandum of charges. Although, the applicant has contended that the allegations as raised against him, are without any basis, Mr. Bhardwaj, appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that it may not be necessary to go to the merits of such contentions especially since by accepted standards, the disciplinary proceedings as such are unsustainable, for the reason that the delay in issuing such memorandum has not been satisfactorily explained.
2. Counsel submits that proceedings at this stage in respect of allegations claimed to have been committed during 1998-2000 cannot be considered as an attempt taken for enforcement of discipline. It has more the characteristic of persecution. He had relied on observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India & Ors. (JT 2006 (4) SC 469) as well as P.V. Mahadevan Vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board (JT 2005 (7) SC 417), where the Honble Supreme Court had held that belated action without proper explanation vitiates the proceedings.
3. We may briefly refer to the relevant facts in the present case. While working as Upper Division Clerk, under the Authority, a memo had been received by him on 30.04.2007, alleging that in the course of his work, he had processed case for revision of cost of a Plot at Jasola on old cost basis. Thereby, he had contributed to monetary loss to the authority. While the proceedings were continuing as above, another memo also has been issued on 16.09.2008, on more or less the same allegation in respect of another building. It is submitted that he had explained his stand to the best of his ability and memory and especially that the calculation sheet had been prepared as authorized and directed by the competent authority and the public authorities had approved the recommendations as above. It is further contended that there is no explanation given as to why the matter was delayed for years together in respect of a transaction, which had been closed, and refund given to the concerned house owner, as back as during 1999. Further to the demand and allocation letter of 1991, physical possession had been given to the concerned individuals in the year 2000.
4. By way of reply, respondents have submitted that the delay was inevitable. This was because after a few years of incident, on vigilance report, the matter had been inquired into but as the relevant documents had been taken into custody for investigation purposes, nothing could have been possible to be processed against the erring officers. Only during 2007-08, finally records had come to be dealt with by the Authority and when there was prima facie grounds to show that there were lapses on the side of the officer concerned, with promptitude action had been taken and they could not have been blamed in dealing with the files.
5. We are not going to the merits of the case at all but are convinced that on the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court, the case at hand could be considered as one where the action could be treated as belated by all standards. May be, there was vigilance inquiry but a subordinate officer who had carried out his duties under supervision of higher authorities would have found it difficult to explain the circumstances, if at all any discrepancy was there in determination of the dues to be levied from the allottee. It should have been practically difficult, after about eight years to take up a defence, as the witnesses available and the documentary evidence to be relied on, would not have been easily traceable. The silence running for years, according to us, has not been satisfactorily explained. Therefore, we are of the view that precipitation of inquiry and prolonging the matter for further periods will be practically unproductive and will not be conducive to the interest of either of the parties. Sufficient guidelines have been given by the Supreme Court as to the manner in which the issue has to be approached in the case of belated action. We find that for want of explanation of the delay, the applicant is entitled to be kept protected from disciplinary proceedings at least.
6. Resultantly, we quash the impugned orders and allow the O.A. The applicant will be entitled to the service benefits as if no disciplinary proceedings (referred to in this OA) had ever been initiated against him. However, we make no order as to costs.
(R.C. Panda) (M Ramachandran) Member (A) Vice Chairman (J) `SRD