Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
B D Sharma vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 18 March, 2026
1 O.A No. 613/2016
Item 34 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 613/2016
Reserved on : 10.03.2026
Pronounced on : 18.03.2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Sh. B.D. Sharma (Aged about 64 years)
Son of Late Sh. Ram Kishan Sharma
R/o. Shop No. 1 & 2, Shyam Park Extn,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201005 .....Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. S. K. Tyagi)
Versus
1. Hon'ble Lt. Governor
NCT of Delhi Raj Niwas, Rajpur Road,
Delhi-110054
2. Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
S.P.M. Civic Centre
Minto Road, New Delhi-110002
3. Vigilance Department
Through Disciplinary Authority
26th Floor, Civic Centre
Minto Road, New Delhi-110002
4. The Dy. Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Shahdara North, Delhi. .....Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Manisha Tyagi)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:06:49+05'30' 2 O.A No. 613/2016 Item 34 (C-3) "i. To stay the execution of the impugned order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the appellate authority and the impugned order dated 20.05.2015 passed by the respondents till final disposal of the present Ο.Α.
ii. To set-aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the appellate authority and the impugned order dated 20.05.2015 passed by the respondents and absolve the applicant of the charges leveled against him.
iii. Allow the cost of the present O.A. in favour of the applicant and against the respondent.
iv. Pass such other and further order /directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that the applicant joined as Junior Engineer in the year 1983. Later, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer (C) on 01.08.2007. While he was working as Assistant Engineer a Building No. C-85, Main Road, Brahmpuri, Delhi collapsed leading to the death of labourers sleeping in its basement. After this an investigation was carried out and the applicant was served with a Statement of Charges and Statement of Allegations on 04.05.2009. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and other officials in this regard. It was alleged that the officials failed to take timely action to stop and demolish the unauthorized construction and also failed to properly supervise their subordinates. On the basis of these allegations, major penalty proceedings were initiated and a departmental inquiry was conducted. After considering the inquiry report dated 07.03.2014, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 20.05.2015 imposed the penalty of reduction in rank, whereby the applicant was reduced from the post of Assistant Engineer to Junior Engineer. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:06:49+05'30' 3 O.A No. 613/2016 Item 34 (C-3) representations dated 23.03.2015 and 22.04.2015 against the Memo as also against the proposed penalties respectively. But to no avail. Distressed he filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Lt. Governor on 27.05.2015. Thereafter he challenged the penalty order by way of OA No. 2096/2015 on the grounds that the charges were not properly proved, that the inquiry findings were not correctly appreciated by the disciplinary authority, and that the punishment imposed was harsh and disproportionate. During the pendency of the OA, M.A No. 1921/2015 was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the appeal of the applicant within 60 days. Pursuant to that order, the respondents issued office order No. 1/58/2008/Vig/NDMC/2015/294 dated 06.07.2015 whereby the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 20.05.2015 was kept in abeyance till final disposal of the appeal pending before the LG. Later, on 06.08.2015 the OA was also disposed of finally. Subsequently, vide order dated 01.12.2015 the appeal of the applicant was also dismissed by the LG which was communicated to the applicant vide order dated 27.01.2016. Aggrieved by the penalty and subsequent orders passed by the authorities, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking quashing of the impugned orders and grant of reliefs quoted above.
3. The counsel of the applicants argued assiduously on the following grounds :-
"1. The impugned order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor and communicated to the applicant vide office order dated 27.01.2016 is null and void in the eyes of law as the Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 23.06.2015 had directed the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the appeal within 60 days and the respondents have never sought extension of time for disposal of the appeal.
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:06:49+05'30' 4 O.A No. 613/2016 Item 34 (C-3)
2. The applicant has an illustrious service carrier and at the time of his retirement a penalty which is stigmatic in nature has been passed without any evidence.
3. Neither appellate authority nor the confirming authority has applied its judicial mind to the facts of the case and has been swayed by the advise of respondent no.2 the Vigilance Department.
4. The order passed by Disciplinary Authority has been found to be not in consonance with MHA OM no.9/13/92-Estt. (D) dated 10.10.1962 by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor and it is / was one of the grounds taken by the applicant in his O.A.
5. Any subsequent proceeding on an invalid illegal order are null and void in eyes of law.
6. The impugned order passed by the respondents is misuse of the process of law as the applicant has been supplied copy of the enquiry long gap of five report after a years, which shows that respondents had nothing against the applicant. the material
7. The impugned order passed by the respondents is a cryptic one and none of the allegations leveled against the applicant has been proved as per the provisions of law as it is on record that till the incident of collapse neither the case file relating to the building was handed over to the applicant nor any information regarding the orders of Dy. Commissioner was communicated to him.
8. The findings of the Enquiry Report are not based on any act of negligence or dereliction of duties on the part of the applicant and have been passed without any application of mind or perusal of records before the respondents.
9. The applicant has been granted regular promotion to the post of A.E. (C) w.e.f. 01.08.2007 and as such, he cannot be demoted / reverted to the post of J.E. and as such, the office order is illegal and ultra virus in terms of the CCS Conduct Rules as applicable to the MCD.
10. The applicant has been doing his best and he has been directing his subordinate JEs effectively all through.
11. During inquiry, it has come on record through statement of Shri Ajay Kumar A.E. (B) MCD that the file of the property is marked to Shri Pradeep Kumar J.E. (B) for compliance of the order passed by the Dy. Zone Commissioner (Shahdara) North vide order dated 29.02.2008 and the applicant has been utilising his subordinate JEs effectively and in any manner he cannot be blamed for the incident.
12. The penalty imposed is unjustified and unsustainable in terms of Guidelines of the DOPT circulated vide O.M. No.11012/9/86- Esstt. (A) dated 24.12.1986.
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:06:49+05'30' 5 O.A No. 613/2016 Item 34 (C-3)
13. The representations made by the applicant have not been considered and looked into by the respondents themselves and as such he cannot be blamed for the incident.
14. The applicant was transferred from the area 19.02.2008 and was not aware of any direction or any order passed by the D.C. Shahdara North Zone ΟΙ any higher authority with regard to the action to be taken against the property."
4. To support his arguments, counsel for the applicant handed across the Bar judgments of different Courts which are quoted below :-
1. Allahabad Bank & Ors. vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari - 2017 Legal Eagle (SC) 2 - Civil Appeal No. 7600 of 2014 dated 02.01.2017 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court vide paras 4 and 6 observed as under :-
"4. The High Court came to the conclusion that neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority had applied their mind or recorded reasons in support of their conclusions. Relying upon the decisions of this court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 570, Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 10, Nand Kishore v. State of Bihar (1972) SCC 366, Kailash Nath Gupta v. Enquiry Officer, Allahabad Bank & Ors. (2003) 9 SCC 480, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584 and Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors (2010) 10 SCC 539, the High Court held that the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were unsustainable in law. The High Court found that the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority were perverse and were based on no evidence whatsoever.
The High Court observed that the Appellate Authority had not applied its mind independently and simply cut and pasted the findings of the Disciplinary Authority while dismissing the appeal.
6. On behalf of the respondent it was on the other hand contended that the enquiry conducted against the respondent and the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority suffered from fatal defects. Firstly, because the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was unfair and had resulted in gross miscarriage of justice on account of the failure of the Enquiry Officer to provide a reasonable opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence in his defense. In the second place the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and so also the Disciplinary Authority were unsupported by any evidence whatsoever and were perverse to say the least. In the third place, the orders were unsustainable also for the reason that the same did not disclose due and proper MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:06:49+05'30' 6 O.A No. 613/2016 Item 34 (C-3) application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The order passed by the Appellate Authority was, in particular, bad in law as the same did not examine the material on record independently and had simply relied upon the findings of the Disciplinary Authority without adverting to the points which the respondent had raised in support of his challenge. It was lastly submitted that the respondent has since superannuated and was a physical wreck having suffered a heart attack and a debilitating stroke which had confined him to bed. Any remand of the proceedings to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order or the Disciplinary Authority for re-examination and fresh determination of the respondent's guilt would not only be harsh but would tantamount to denial of justice to him. The High Court was in that view justified in taking a pragmatic view of the matter and in directing continuity of service to the respondent and release of all service and retiral benefits to him upto the date of his superannuation."
2. Anil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer and Others - Civil Appeal No. 4692 (NL) of 1984 dated 08.05.1985 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court vide paras 5 and 6 has held as under :-
"5. We have extracted the charges framed against the appellant. We have also pointed out in clear terms the repon of the Enquiry Officer. It is well-settled that a disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasi-judicial enquiry held according to the principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer has a duty to act judicially. The Enquiry Officer did not apply his mind to the evidence. Save setting out the names of the witnesses, he did not discuss the, evidence. He merely recorded his ipse dixit that the charges are proved. He did not assign a single reason why the evidence produced by the appellant did not appeal to him or was considered not credit-worthy. He, did not permit a peep into his mind as to why the evidence produced by the management appealed to him in preference to the evidence produced by the appellant. An enquiry report in a quasi-judicial enquiry must show the reasons for the conclusion. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the Enquiry Officer. It has to be a speaking order in the sense that the conclusion is supported by reasons. This is too well-settled to be supported by a precedent. In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1966) 1 SCR 466: (AIR 1966 SC 671) this Court observed that a speaking order will at best be a reasonable and at its worst be at least a plausible one.
The public should not be deprived of this only safeguard. Similarly in Mahabir Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1971) | SCR 201: (AIR 1970 SC 1302), this Court reiterated that satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:06:49+05'30' 7 O.A No. 613/2016 Item 34 (C-3) cogent reasons that appealed to the authority. It should all the more be so where the quasi-judicial enquiry may result in deprivation of livelihood or attach a stigma to the character. In this case the enquiry report is an order-sheet which merely produces the stage through which the enquiry passed. It clearly disclosed a total non-application of mind and it is this report on which the General Manager acted in terminating the service of the appellant. There could not have been a gross case of non application of mind and it is such an enquiry which has found favour with the Labour Court and the High Court.
6. Where a disciplinary enquiry affects the livelihood and is likely to cast a stigma and it has to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the minimum expectation is that the report must be a reasoned one. The Court then may not enter into the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence. But where the evidence is annexed, to an order-sheet and no correlation is established between the two showing application of mind, we are constrained to observe that it is not an enquiry report at all. Therefore, there was no enquiry in this case worth the name and the order of termination based on such proceeding disclosing non- application of mind would be unsustainable."
3. Nand Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar - Case No. 2313 (n) of 1968 dated 19.04.1978 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court vide paras 19, 20 and 25 observed as under :-
"19. The second principle, which is a corollary from the first, is, that if the disciplinary inquiry has been conducted fairly without bias or predilection, in accordance with the relevant disciplinary rules and the Constitutional provisions, the order passed buy such authority cannot be interfered with in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution, merely on the ground that it was based on evidence which would be insufficient for conviction of the delinquent on the same charge at a criminal trial.
20. The contentions in the instant case resolve into the narrow issue: Whether, the impugned orders do not rest on any evidence whatever, but merely on suspicions, conjectures and surmises.
25. On examination of the Tribunal's record, the High Court found that there was oral and documentary evidence before the disciplinary tribunal, that at all times material to the imposition, realisation and receipt of the fine amounts in question, all the fine records in the Court of the Magistrate, Sasaram, used to remain with Bench Clerk, Le, the appellant. The Inquiry Officer had examined three witnesses, namely: Triloki Prasad Sinha, Rang Bahadur Singh and Kalka Prasad. The evidence of Triloki Prasad Sinha was certainly of an accomplice character, but the evidence of Rang Bahadur Singh, who was the Fines Clerk before Triloki MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:06:49+05'30' 8 O.A No. 613/2016 Item 34 (C-3) Prasad Sinha, and of the Head Clerk Kalka Prasad, did not suffer from such a flaw. From their evidence, it was clear that in actual practice all the fine records were being maintained by the Bench Clerk, and it was he who used to take all necessary steps, including the preparation and issue of distress warrants for realisation of outstanding fine. The Fines Clerk made entries in the Fines Register in accordance with the intimation sent by the Bench Clerk. This practice continued till March 1951, when Mr. Gorden, the then District Magistrate directed that all fine records must be made over to the Fines Clerk by May 14, 1951. The fine amount in question, were evidently recovered in execution of a distress- warrant, issued by the Magistrate."
5. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the submissions of the applicant and contended that the charged officials, namely Shri Sanjay Malik, Executive Engineer, Shri B.D. Sharma and Shri Ajay Kumar, Assistant Engineers, and Shri Pradeep Kumar and Shri Joy Joseph, Junior Engineers, were posted in the Building Department of Shahdara North Zone and were responsible for the Brahmpuri area during different periods between September 2007 and March 2008. Being the officers in charge, they were required to ensure that any unauthorised construction was stopped or demolished at the initial stage, that such construction was booked for action under Sections 343/344 of the DMC Act, that sealing proceedings under Section 345-A and prosecution under Sections 332/461 or complaint under Section 466-A were initiated, and that senior officers exercised proper supervision over their subordinates so that timely action could be taken against unauthorised construction. The counsel submitted that, pursuant to a reference from the Commissioner regarding the collapse of the building at property No. C-85, Gali No. 8, Brahmpuri, an investigation was conducted by the Vigilance Department. The investigation revealed that the owner/builder had purchased the MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:06:49+05'30' 9 O.A No. 613/2016 Item 34 (C-3) property in 2006 with construction up to the ground and first floor and had applied to the MCD on 15.10.2007 for permission to repair the building. However, the builder started unauthorised construction at the site, which was detected by the concerned JE and AE on 07.11.2007. A stop-work notice dated 07.11.2007 was issued and a copy was sent to Police Station Usmanpur. Demolition action was carried out on 07.01.2008 on the second floor with police assistance and a request was also made to the police to maintain vigilance over the property. Although further demolition was fixed for 14.01.2008, the police force could not be provided due to Republic Day arrangements and the builder continued the construction. Subsequently, the file was processed through the JE, AE, EE and SE to the Deputy Commissioner for approval of sealing, and a show cause notice for sealing was issued on 23.01.2008 for unauthorised construction on the ground, first and second floors. The builder submitted a reply on 25.01.2008 and sought a personal hearing, which was granted on 19.02.2008. Thereafter, the Commissioner ordered demolition of the second floor on 29.02.2008 and the matter was marked to the concerned officers for necessary action, but no effective action was taken and the building ultimately collapsed on 29.03.2008, resulting in the death of nine labourers and serious injuries to twelve others. He alleged that the concerned officers failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed misconduct by permitting unauthorised construction and by failing to stop or demolish it at the initial stage. It was further alleged that they failed to book the property, initiate sealing and prosecution proceedings, comply with the demolition directions dated 29.02.2008 and exercise proper supervision over MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:06:49+05'30' 10 O.A No. 613/2016 Item 34 (C-3) their subordinate staff. After the charges were denied, a joint departmental inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer submitted the report dated 07.03.2014. The report held that in the case of Joy Joseph, JE, charges 1 and 3 were not proved, charge 2 was partly proved and charge 4 was proved; in respect of Pradeep Kumar, JE, charges 1 to 5 were not proved; in respect of Ajay Kumar, AE, charges 1 to 6 were not proved; while in respect of B.D. Sharma, AE, and Sanjay Malik, EE, charge 2 was partly proved and charges 4, 5 and 6 were proved. He added that after the trifurcation of the erstwhile MCD, the present postings of the officials were verified and it was found that Sanjay Malik, B.D. Sharma and Joy Joseph were posted in North DMC, Pradeep Kumar in South DMC and Ajay Kumar in East DMC. Based on the inquiry report, regular departmental action for major penalty was initiated. The Disciplinary Authority proposed the penalty of reduction in rank against Sanjay Malik, EE, and B.D. Sharma, AE, which was concurred with by the Central Vigilance Commission. After considering their replies and the second stage advice of the CVC, the Commissioner, North DMC imposed the penalty of reduction in rank vide orders dated 20.05.2015. Aggrieved thereby, the officials filed appeals before the Lt. Governor and also approached the Tribunal through separate Original Applications. The Tribunal directed the Appellate Authority to decide the statutory appeals within sixty days and ordered that the penalty remain in abeyance till then. Subsequently, the Lt. Governor, acting as the Appellate Authority, modified the penalties by directing reduction of B.D. Sharma to the post of JE till his retirement and reduction of Sanjay Malik to the post of AE for a period of three years, after which he would be restored to the post MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:06:49+05'30' 11 O.A No. 613/2016 Item 34 (C-3) of EE. The respondents contend that the impugned orders were passed by the competent authorities after due consideration of the material on record and that the Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the evidence in disciplinary matters, and therefore the present OA deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merit.
6. To buttress his case, the counsel of the respondents relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of - D. K. Gupta vs. MCD and Ors. dated 09.05.2008. Paras 8 and 9 of which are reproduced below :-
"8. For the charges against the petitioner, the punishment cannot be termed shocking or illogical or suffering from procedural impropriety or is in defiance of logic or moral standards. The Learned Counsel is unable to point out as to how, the punishment imposed is in defiance of logic or moral standards. The Supreme Court in Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jain had held as under:
The court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision for that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. The court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or is shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the same that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards. Unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no is scope for interference. Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional circumstances and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. When a Court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. In the normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. In the MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:06:49+05'30' 12 O.A No. 613/2016 Item 34 (C-3) case at hand, the High Court did not record any reason as to how and why it found the punishment shockingly disproportionate.
9. So long as the charges are proved against the petitioner, he cannot contend that the others persons allegedly also responsible for unauthorized constructions should also be punished before action can be taken against him or that there is discrimination."
He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in R. C. Meena vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation - WP (C) No. 455/2016 dated 22.01.2016. Paras 3 and 8 of which are quoted below :-
"3. Primarily, two contentions have been raised by the petitioner. He contends that he has been discriminated against and was falsely implicated and a number of other officers similarly placed have been completely exonerated. Secondly, it is submitted that the report of the enquiry officer is perverse and absurd for lack of evidence and had erred in holding that the petitioner had committed misconduct.
8. The original order of penalty was modified in the appellate proceedings, thereby giving partial relief to the petitioner. The contention that the petitioner's tenure was limited and for a period of two months and nine days, is not a valid ground to set aside the findings in the enquiry report and the punishments penalties awarded. It is in the aforesaid factual background that the punishment/penalty in question has been imposed. As an Assistant Engineer, it was the petitioner's responsibility and duty to ensure that action and stringent steps were taken as per law to stall and prevent the unauthorised construction, to ensure that notices were issued, sealing was done and information was communicated for disconnection of electricity and water supply. Petitioner was required to exercise proper supervision and control over subordinate staff. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed."
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submission; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant decisions and judgments of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court. We have observed that on 29.03.2008, the unfortunate day when the Building collapsed (Due to structural defects, poor quality of materials used and lack of supervision in the territorial jurisdiction of Mr. B. D. Sharna, AE of the MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:06:49+05'30' 13 O.A No. 613/2016 Item 34 (C-3) charge of this area was with Mr. B. D. Sharma as can be seen from the table below :-
In the light of the above, the applicant (charged officer/Delinquent officer) cannot escape and run away from his responsibility of supervising the building construction and taking corrective steps when lapses were found and pointed out - stop the unauthorised construction and demolish the illegal structures at the initial stage. Also in the summary of charges/findings as per the table below :-
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:06:49+05'30' 14 O.A No. 613/2016 Item 34 (C-3) We have noted that while charges 4, 5 and 6 have been proved; charge 2 has been partly proved.
8. It is a settled principle in Administrative Law and Service Jurisprudence that this Tribunal is not an Appellate Tribunal; it cannot re- appreciate evidence and it does not have the powers to substitute its own decision/discretion vis a vis the Inquiry Officer (IO) / Disciplinary Authority (DA) / Appellate Authority (AA). As per catena of Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court viz :-
(i) Union of India vs. Parma Nanda - (1989)
2 SCC 177
(ii) SBI vs. S.K. Endow - (1994) 2 SCC 537;
(iii) B.C. Chaturvedi vs. UOI & others - (1995) 6 SCC 749 and
(iv) UOI vs. Gunasekaran - (2015) 2 SCC 610 It is a settled principle in Administrative Law and Service Jurisprudence that the role of Tribunals in Judicial review in a disciplinary proceeding is very limited and confined only under the below mentioned grounds:-
(i) Illegality:- Absence of Jurisdiction; Abuse of Jurisdiction; Excess of Jurisdiction; Failure to exercise Jurisdiction.
(ii) Irrationality:- When the charge sheet has been issued by an Incompetent Authority; the orders of DA/AA are based on no evidence (perverse); the orders of DA/AA are based on irrelevant and extraneous MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:06:49+05'30' 15 O.A No. 613/2016 Item 34 (C-3) consideration; the orders of DA/AA are egregious, outrageous, preposterous, obnoxious, arbitrary, whimsical and capricious.
(iii) Violation of Principles of Natural Justice--violation of Rule against bias; violation of Rule of fair hearing; violation of Rule of having passed a well reasoned and speaking order.
(iv) Violation of principle of proportionality--Orders passed by DA/AA are unreasonable and disproportionate to the gravity of the charges that have shocked the conscience of the Court.
9. We are of the considered opinion that none of the above grounds of Judicial Review are attracted in the instant OA. The gross callousness and criminal carelessness of the Applicant (CO/DO) caused the tragic death of nine labourers and serious injuries to twelve others cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The balance of convenience in the instant OA therefore clearly lies with the respondents. The instant OA is devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. MAs if any are also disposed of in similar manner. However there shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.20 16:06:49+05'30'