Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sunil Chawla vs Delhi Development Authority Delhi on 5 August, 2025
(OA No.1333/2020)
(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 1333/2020
Reserved on:18.07.2025
Pronounced on:05.08.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R N Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr.Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Mr. Sunil Chawla, Aged about 58 years,
S/o Late Mulk Raj Chawla
R/o AD-130C, Pitampura
Delhi-110034.
Post-Junior Engineer (Civil)
Northern Division No.1,
Pitampura, Delhi-110088.
UID No.1405103 ....Applicant
(By advocate: Mr.Nilansh Gaur)
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
Through its Vice Chairman
"B" Block, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi
2. Commissioner (Personnel)
Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
"B" Block, Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi. ...Respondents
(By Advoate: Mr.Arun Birbal)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A):
By way of this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s) :-
"(i) quash and set aside the order bearing no.1040/F9(140)85/PB-II/DDA/959 dated 29.08.2019;
(ii) quash & set aside the Memorandum No.854/9(140)85/PB/191 dated 10.08.2022;
(iii) to reinstate the Applicant in service w.e.f. 29.08.2019 and continue in service till his retirement in October 2021, with all consequential benefits.
(iv) to direct the Respondent to accept the amount of Rs.2,57,040/-unilateral deposited in the bank of the Applicant; and/or direct the said deposit not to be an acquiescence on the part of the Applicant to the other of Compulsorily Retirement.
(v) accord all consequential benefits.
(vi) award cost of the proceedings.
(vii) pass any other order as deemed fit and and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow cost in favour of the Applicant."
(OA No.1333/2020) (2)
2. The facts of the case, as gleaned from the OA, are that the applicant was appointed to the temporary post of Junior Engineer (Civil) vide memorandum dated 01.03.1985 issued by the Deputy Director (Personnel)-I, Delhi Development Authority (DDA). Prior to the said appointment, the applicant was working in DDA on muster roll, as Work Assistant and on work-charged basis since October 1981 on the recommendation of the Vice Chairman, DDA. The applicant joined DDA w.e.f. 06.03.1985 on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Personnel Branch-II, on being relieved from the concerned working division by the Executive Engineer, I.S.B.T./DDA.
3. It is submitted that vide office dated 20.04.2002 the applicant was relieved from DDA and was transferred to Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on deputation. The said selection and transfer on deputation was after vigilance clearance and on consideration of APARs' of the applicant. The applicant at the time of joining MCD on deputation on 20.04.2002 was posted in Rohini Zone from 20.04.2002 to 31.12.2003 and thereafter was deputed to Karol Bagh Zone on 01.01.2004 till 05.08.2004. The applicant during his tenure with MCD captured and corrected unauthorized constructions/ non-compoundable deviations carried out in the area.
4. It is further submitted that vide office order dated 06.08.2004, the applicant was relieved from the Building Department, Karol Bagh Zone, MCD and repatriated to DDA. It is mentioned that from the date of appointment in DDA on 06.03.1985 till deputation to MCD on 20.04.2002, the service record of the applicant was exemplary and no memo, charge sheet, or disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated against him. Furthermore, even during the period of deputation in MCD from 20.04.2002 to 05.08.2004, no adverse actions/ proceedings were ever initiated against him.
5. It is stated that on 27.09.2004, after the repatriation of the applicant, an FIR No.52/2004 came to be registered in the Anti Corruption Branch, GNCT of Delhi, alleging that unauthorized construction was being carried out in connivance with the then MCD officials primarily Sh. S.K. Jain, JE. However, the name of the applicant was also included as he was serving in Karol Bagh Zone at that time. It is mentioned that the ACB, GNCT of Delhi submitted the Final/Closure Report on two occasions before the Hon'ble Special (OA No.1333/2020) (3) Judge being Closure Report dated 26.08.2008 (First Closure Report) and Closure Report dated 29.06.2010 (Second Closure Report), both citing identical observations/ findings that:-
"Despite efforts no evidence against officials of MCD to link them with offences punishable under the POC Act has been found. The case suffered inherent weakness and for the lack of evidence, responsibilities could not be fixed on any MCD officials."
6. It is also stated that the private party/complainant filed a Protest Petition against the First Closure Report. The Hon'ble Special Judge vide order dated 05.09.2009 ordered further investigation on the said Protest Petition, while observing that a complaint was made against Sh. S.K. Jain Jr. Engineer alleging therein that many properties in Patel Nagar and Rajinder Nagar had been constructed/are being constructed illegally by paying bribe to him and unauthorized construction in one property was being carried out in connivance with MCD officials. The Second Closure Report was filed by the ACB, GNCT of Delhi reiterating the findings of the First Closure Report. It is mentioned that the Hon'ble Special Judge vide order dated 04.01.2012, directed further investigation in compliance of order dated 05.09.2009, while observing the fact that the matter was pending investigation for more than last 7 years as the FIR relating to the said case was registered on 27.09.2004. It is also mentioned that between the period from the year 2006 to 2011, six disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the DDA on charges framed by MCD against the applicant, all on the ground of alleged lapses during the period when he was transferred on deputation to MCD being 20.04.2002 to 05.08.2004 (MCD Tenure'). The timeline and findings of disciplinary proceeding conducted by the DDA are as under:
S Date of Zone of MCD Timeline Final order by r. order on (where (Period for Commissioner (P) & N IO deputed) Service which Engineer Member o Findings Disp. DDA Proceedings Initiated)
1. 15.12.09 Building 01.05.2003 to Exonerated of All Deptt./Rohini 10.09.2003 Charges. Case Zone closed.
2. 17.02,09 Building 30.06.2003 to Major Penalty Deptt./Rohini 10.09.2003 converted to Minor Zone Penalty. Reduction (OA No.1333/2020) (4) by 3% of pay plus grade pay (one increment) without cumulative effect.
3. 13.06.11 Building During 2004 Exonerated of All Deptt./Karol Charges. Case Bagh Zone closed.
4. 04.07.11 Building During 2004 Exonerated of All Deptt./Karol Charges. Case Bagh Zone closed.
5. 04.07.14 Building 01.01.2004 to Exonerated of All Deptt./Karol 04.07.2004 Charges. Case Bagh Zone closed.
6. 04.07.14 Building 26.04.2002 to Exonerated of All Deptt./Rohini 10.09.2003 Charges. Case Zone closed.
7. It is pointed out that out of the six disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant, he was exonerated of all charges in 5 of those proceedings and cases were closed by the Department itself and only one minor penalty of reduction by 3% of his pay plus Grade Pay (one increment) without cumulative effect was actually imposed. Even the aforesaid penalty is under contest, as the applicant had filed OA No. 3212/2015 before this Tribunal challenging the minor penalty of reduction by 3% of his pay plus Grade Pay (one increment) and the same is pending adjudication.
Hence, it can be said that as on date there is nothing adverse against the applicant.
8. It is emphasized that the then MCD officials/accused in FIR No.52/2004, including the applicant herein, were arrested on 26.06.2012 but the Hon'ble Special Judge granted the applicant interim bail till 07.07.2012. Further, the applicant was sent to judicial custody on 09.07.2012 and was released on bail by the Hon'ble Special Judge on 21.07.2012. Thereafter, the applicant was placed under suspension by the DDA w.e.f. 09.07.2012 to 29.01.2013. But the suspension of the applicant was revoked with immediate effect on 30.01.2013, after taking into due consideration his representation dated 18.09.2012, though the suspension period of the applicant was not regularized.
9. The applicant would also contend that he made representations dated 14.11.2014, 04.12.2014, 18.05.2016, 01.06.2016 and 14.06.2016 to the Commissioner (Personnel) and other senior officials to regularize the period of suspension from 09.07.2012 to 29.01.2013, as spent on duty. In fact owing to non-
(OA No.1333/2020) (5) regularization of the suspension period, the applicant despite being eligible for promotion was not being promoted, but despite revocation of suspension, the period of suspension has not been regularized till date.
10. Further, though the Vice Chairman, DDA on 01.07.2014 issued Prosecution Sanction to take further action in the case FIR No. 52/2004 no charge sheet was issued. It is submitted that assignment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was taken up for consideration by the Screening Committee, wherein other Junior Engineers were assigned the said post but the applicant was denied the same on the ground of being unfit merely due to the pending trial proceedings. The applicant made representations contending that his eligibility for being assigned CDC to post of AE (Civil) be reconsidered and that mere pendency of the FIR in absence of any charge sheet should not disentitle the applicant and render him ineligible for the said assignment/promotion. It is also stated that even otherwise, in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) dated 22.05.2015, 03.06.2015 and 06.08.2015 no adverse remarks have been made against the applicant. Further, in the Confidential Report, DDA dated 06.08.2015, availed through RTI by the applicant, it has been observed that though prosecution sanction was issued on 01.07.2014 and a letter was sent to the ACB, GNCT of Delhi in order to obtain the latest position, yet nothing so far had been reported by the AVO/ACB (unit), DDA. Further, on re- examination of the issue with regards to the applicant herein, it has been observed and recorded that 'it may also be stated that in the absence of filing of the Charge Sheet in court, the individual may not be assessed unfit'.
11. Placing reliance on the Hon'ble Court in W.P. (C) 8674/2007 titled Y.S. Sengar vs MCD & Ors. order dated 23.11.2007 it is argued that as the Hon'ble High Court observed a mere pendency of police case, in the absence of any charge sheet would not be an impediment so far as the question of entitlement of promotion of an employee is concerned. The applicant submitted a representation dated 07.07.2015 to the Commissioner (Personnel), DDA for not being considered in the E.O No.784 dated 16.06.2015 whereby a list to assign the CDC (Current Duty Charge) to AE (Civil) was issued.
(OA No.1333/2020) (6) The applicant thereafter appeared in the Limited Department Examination for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 07.02.2016 and qualified at Serial No.1/Rank 1, on top of the list of qualified candidates. It is stated that on a bare perusal of the ACRs/APARs of the applicant, his performance in the LDE, he cannot be termed as 'dead wood' and retired pre-maturely/compulsorily in public interest.
12. It is stated that the applicant received a letter dated 27.12.2016 issued by the Assistant Director (Confidential Branch) stating that the case of the applicant had been deferred by the DPC, for promotion to the post of AE (Civil, for want of clear status of issue of charge sheet from Vigilance Department in FIR No. 52/2007 dated 27.09.2004'. Thereafter, the applicant received letter dated 23.02.2018 issued by the Dy. Director (P)-I, DDA stating that his representations dated 05.12.2017 and 18.01.2018 regarding consideration of promotion and regularization of suspension period, has been examined and it has been decided to await the final decision in the criminal case pending in the court as well as the case filed by the applicant before the Hon'ble Court. It is reiterated that the applicant was put on suspension for a period of 205 days and the said period despite repeated letters, requests and representations, has not been regularized.
13. Further, it is submitted that as on 06.03.2015 (which has been taken as the date on which the applicant has been assumed to have completed 30 years of qualifying service) as the period of suspension had not been regularized, the applicant had completed exactly 29 years 5 months 5 days of service. Vide impugned order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Personnel), DDA, the applicant was compulsorily retired while observing that he had already completed 30 years of 'qualifying service' for pension on 06.03.2015. The applicant filed various representations for review of the order as permissible under law. In the meanwhile, a sum of Rs.2,57,040/- was credited in the account of the applicant despite the fact that the matter was still pending consideration. The same lies in the account of the applicant, without prejudice and despite his non-acceptability of the drastic unilateral action of compulsorily retirement. A VCR dated 24.12.2019 was issued by the DDA for submission to the Review Committee detailing the factual position (OA No.1333/2020) (7) that the applicant was exonerated from all charges. On 10.08.2020, the respondent has decided the review of the applicant by rejecting the representation of the applicant dated 02.09.2019 filed against the order dated 29.08.2019. The applicant had filed numbers of representation(s) dated 18.09.2019, 16.03.2020 and reminders dated 17.12.2019, 18.12.2019, 20.12.2019, 09.01.2020, 16.03.2020 & 17.03.2020, however no representation dated 02.09.2019 was filed by the applicant.
13. The respondents in their counter reply have submitted that the name of the applicant figured during investigation in case FIR No.52/04 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Government of NCT of Delhi under sections 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 120-B IPC. This FIR was in relation to actions and omissions while the applicant was posted in MCD on deputation. The applicant was taken in custody on 26.06.2012 and was released on bail on 21.07.2012. The applicant was placed under suspension with effect from 09.07.2012 vide order dated 06.09.2012 of DDA. The applicant was reinstated on 30.01.2013. At a subsequent stage, a request for sanction of prosecution was received and the appointing authority after taking note of facts and circumstances, granted the sanction for prosecution on 01.07.2014. The case is still pending investigation and likely to be finalized at the earliest as reported by the ACB, GNCTD. The contents relating to proceedings before the Special Judge, Delhi are within the knowledge of the ACB. ACB is not a party to this OA.
14. It is stated that there was no occasion for regularization of the suspension period as the applicant was never exonerated in the above-mentioned FIR nor the FIR was closed. The case of the applicant was examined by the Screening Committee. It was noted that the applicant in past has been issued 06 major penalty charge sheets and penalties had been imposed on him. This substantiates repeated dereliction of duties and misconducts. It was further noticed that the name of the applicant also figures in case FIR No.52/04 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Government of NCT of Delhi under sections 13(I)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 120-B IPC. This FIR was in (OA No.1333/2020) (8) relation to actions and omissions while the applicant was posted in MCD on deputation. The applicant was taken in custody on MCD on 26.06.2012 and was released on bail on 21.07.2012. The applicant was then placed under suspension with effect from 09.07.2012 vide order dated 06.09.2012 of DDA. Thereafter, the applicant was reinstated on 30.01.2013. At a subsequent stage, a request for sanction of prosecution was received and the appointing authority after taking note of facts and circumstances, granted the sanction for prosecution of the applicant on 01.07.2014. The case is still pending investigation and likely to finalize at the earliest as reported by the ACB, GNCTD.
15. In these circumstances, the Screening Committee recommended that the applicant be compulsorily retired. The recommendations of the committee were then considered by the appointing authority namely the Commissioner (Personnel), DDA who after examining all facts, circumstances and records accepted the recommendations of the Screening Committee and ordered that the applicant be compulsorily retired under FR 56(1)(1) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. EO No. 1083 dated 05.09.2019 was issued. Thereafter, order no.1040/F9(140)85/PB-II/DDA/959 dated 29.08.2019 issued by Commissioner (Personnel) was handed over to the applicant along cheque no. 021102 dated 27.08.2019 amounting to Rs.2,57,040/-. The applicant was paid this amount of Rs.2,57,040/- by way of pay and allowances in lieu of notice period of three months.
16. It is further submitted that a representation / appeal dated 18.09.2019 was received from the applicant seeking review of order dated 29.08.2019. This representation/appeal was considered and rejected by Representation Committee constituted in this regard. This was intimated to the applicant vide Order No. 854/F9(140)85/PB-II/191 dated 10.08.2020 of Commissioner (Personnel).
17. The respondents emphasis that the law relating to compulsory retirement under FR 56 (i) and rule 48 (1) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is well established. An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies neither a stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior on the part of the employee. The government has (OA No.1333/2020) (9) absolute discretion in this matter and the order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. At best, an order of compulsory retirement can be interfered with by a court of law if the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary-in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. The principles of natural justice are also not applicable in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This Tribunal may not like to act as an appellate authority over the decision of the appointing authority in this regard. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed on no evidence or that it is arbitrary.
18. We have heard both the sides and also perused the pleadings on records, including the counter reply, rejoinder and the written statement.
19. Learned counsel for the applicant reiterating the claim made in the rejoinder and the additional affidavit has submitted that the very foundation of the impugned order dated 29.08.2019 is void since the respondents could have taken resorted to Rule 48(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 only after the government servant had completed 30 years qualifying service but in the instant case, the applicant as on 06.03.2015 (as mentioned in the impugned order) was falling short of 30 years qualifying service as the period of suspension with effect from 09.07.2012 to 29.01.2013 i.e. 205 days, which was not regularized till the superannuation dated 31.10.2021. Therefore, the applicant as on 06.03.2015 had actually completed 29 years, 5 months and 5 days and not 30 years.
20. Further, learned counsel for the applicant argues that as evident from the Minutes of the Review Committee meeting dated 02.08.2019, the Review Committee had overlooked the fact that out of 6 major penalty charge sheets, the applicant was already exonerated in 5 cases by the competent authority as DA. One minor penalty, which was the subject matter of challenge, third time in OA No.3212/2015 before the Tribunal at the time of the Review Committee meeting, which was subsequently during the pendency (OA No.1333/2020) (10) of this OA, was allowed by the Tribunal against which WP(C) No.16472/2023 is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. In fact, the Review Committee had observed that the official has been issued 06 major charge sheets and 01 minor penalty has been imposed on him which substantiates dereliction of duties and misconduct repeatedly. He further argues that even the Representation Committee (constituted on 15.05.2020) in its meeting held on 22.06.2020 had noted the aforesaid erroneous observations of the Review Committee. It is also submitted that in FIR No.52/04, which has formed the basis of invoking Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 against the applicant, following the closure reports has already filed by the Anti Corruption Branch on 14.12.2020 which has been accepted by the Court of Learned Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, vide order dated 27.09.2021, exonerating the applicant before the superannuation dated 31.10.2021.
21. Learned counsel for the applicant also places reliance on a catena of judgments, including the Tribunal's order passed in OA No.2440/2023 in the matter of Gurjinder Pal Singh vs. Union of India and Another decided on 30.04.2024 wherein while setting aside the premature retirement of officer on the ground that order of compulsory retirement cannot be punitive and cannot be adopted as a shortcut to avoid departmental proceedings. Reliance is also placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. UOI and Ors. (2023) 2 SCR 30 (Para-
39) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while setting the order of compulsory retirement resorted to under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules held that the court can pierce the smoke screen and determine if the order is punitive and is adopted as a shortcut to departmental proceedings, especially when the officer has outstanding gradings and his integrity is beyond doubt.
22. Learned counsel argues that in the present case the applicant has outstanding gradings, unblemished service and has been exonerated in the criminal case upon acceptance of closure report and exonerated in all departmental cases which the respondents have glossed over while deciding to prematurely retire him.
(OA No.1333/2020) (11)
23. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has re- asserted the contention made in the counter reply/synopsis of submissions and submitted that applicant in the past has been issued 06 major penalty charge sheets and 01 minor penalty had been imposed on him, which substantiates repeated dereliction of duties and misconducts on his pasts. It also alludes to FIR No.52/04 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Delhi Police under sections 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 120-B IPC. It also states that the applicant was taken into custody on 26.06.2012 and released on bail on 21.07.2012. Subsequent to which, the applicant was placed under suspension with effect from 09.07.2012. The applicant was reinstated on 30.01.2013. Subsequently, sanction for prosecution of the applicant was received on 01.07.2014 when the Screening Committee made it recommended the applicant be compulsorily retired in view of the aforesaid facts. The recommendation of the Screening Committee was duly considered by the appointing authority, namely the Commissioner (Personnel), DDA, who after taking examination of all facts and circumstances and records, accepted the recommendations of the Screening Committee and ordered that the applicant be compulsorily retired. A representation dated 18.09.2019 was received seeking review of the order, which was considered and rejected by the Representation Committee and intimated to the applicant vide order dated 10.08.2020.
24. It is further submitted that the compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it implies neither a stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior on the part of the employee and the government has absolute discretion in this matter and the order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order of compulsory retirement can be interfered with by a court of law, if the order is passed malafide or is based on no evidence and it is arbitrary, as held by the Apex Court in Baikuntha Nath Das vs. Chief Distt. Medical Officer, Baripada, 1992 (2) SCC 299. It is also argued that unless period of his suspension is regularized, the same cannot be taken note of for counting of his total service.
(OA No.1333/2020) (12) However, the officer did not cease to be in service while he was under suspension.
25. We have considered the issues raised by the learned counsel for the applicant: (a) The first and foremost is that the applicant had not completed the required 30 years of service and (b) the recommended committee had wrongly noted that 06 major penalty charge sheets were issued and penalty was imposed on him, which led to his compulsory retirement.
26. So far as applicant's claim that unless the period of his suspension with effect from 09.07.2012 till 29.01.2013, i.e. 6 months and 21 days is regularized, the same cannot be taken note of for counting of his total service, we are of the view that this argument is not tenable as even if the officer is suspended and no work is taken from him, he remains in service. If an official is reinstated, the order may have to be passed by the authority as to in what manner the period of suspension will be treated but it would not mean that unless the period of suspension is regularized, the period cannot be counted for calculation of total service. Therefore, we are of the view that that the respondents have rightly taken into account the period of his suspension to arrive at a conclusion that he had completed 30 years of service.
27. Another plea of the applicant that the recommended committee had wrongly come to the conclusion that six major penalty charge sheets resulting in one major and one minor in as much as he has been imposed one minor penalty out of six cases which is sub judice before Hon'ble High Court and thus this could not be a ground for compulsory retirement and the same is liable to be set aside. However, we find that the order of compulsory retirement is passed after taking note of the complete service tenure of the applicant. The impugned order dated 10.08.2020 passed by the DDA reads as follows:
"AND WHEREAS, the representation submitted by Shri Sunil Chawla against the aforesaid order has been examined by the 'Representation Committee'.
AND WHEREAS after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case vis a vis the contentions raised by Shri Sunil Chawla, JE(Civil) vide his representation dated 02.08.2019, the Representation Committee has inter alia (OA No.1333/2020) (13) observed that the Review Committee has recommended the case for premature retirement in the public interest after taking into consideration the overall service records, which is not in reference to a particular case of misconduct/ disciplinary criminal case and is not a punitive action. The Representation Committee has also found no merit new facts or any new aspects of a fact not already known and has, therefore, found no ground to interfere with the recommendations of the Review Committee."
28. We have also perused the Minutes of the Screening Committee, Review Committee and the Representation Committee. The Meeting of the Screening Committee was held on 29.10.2018. The Committee at the outset noted the following:
"3. As per Rule, the Government has the absolute right to retire a Government servant before he/she attains the age of as the case may be by giving him a notice not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice under the provisions of the following rules, viz.
If he/she is in Group 'A' or 'B' service or post and has entered Govt. service before attaining the age of 35 years after he has attained the age of 50 years.
In any other case after he/she has attained the age of 55 years provided that in the cases of a Group 'D' official such action can be taken if he entered service after 23rd July, 1966.
In other words, a Govt. servant belonging to Group 'A' and 'B' who has entered Govt. service after attaining the age of 35 years and officer belonging to Group 'C' and 'D' can be prematurely retired after they have attained the age of 55 years within the exception of Group 'D' officials, who entered service on or before 23rd July, 1966."
In the light of the aforesaid rule position, the Reviewing Committee proceeded to consider the cases of officials of Group A and Group B. The details of such 97 officials were placed and considered by the committee and it was decided to place the cases before the Review Committee. The Review Committee in its meeting dated 02.08.2019 considered 9 Group 'B'. The Screening constituted for the purpose, screened (Non-Gazetted) referred by Vigilance Department as per their list of Prosecution Sanction, Officers of Doubtful Integrity and Agreed List. Out of the 9 cases of Group 'B' (Non-Gaz.), the Screening Committee recommended 08 cases to review under FR 56(j) - Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Review Committee considered the suitability on the basis of available service records, vigilance/disciplinary clearance report, prosecution (OA No.1333/2020) (14) sanction, list of doubtful integrity, agreed list and APARs grading of the said 08 officers, including the applicant. With regard to the applicant, the recommended committee had noted the following:
"With respect to Sh. Sunil Chawla S/O Sh. Mulk Raj Chawla, Junior Engineer (Civil), (Date of birth-20.10.1961 & Date of appointment in DDA-06.03.1985) the Review Committee has noted following facts:
i) The official has been issued 06 major penalty charge sheets.
One major and one minor penalty have been imposed on him which substantiates dereliction of duties and misconduct repeatedly.
ii). The official is also facing trial in a criminal case under Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 r/w Section 120-B, IPC in FIR No. 52/04 dated 27.09.2004 registered by ACB/GNC'TD while posted in MCD on deputation. Prosecution Sanction was issued on 01.07.2014. The case is still pending investigation and likely to finalize at the earliest as reported by ACB/GNCTD.
iii) He was also arrested on 26.6.12 und released on bail on 21.07.2012. He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 09.07.2012 vide order dated 06.09.12 and reinstated on 30.1.2013.
Considering the above details, the Review Committee observes that the conduct of Sh Sunil Chawla S/O Sh. Mulk Raj Chawla, Junior Engineer (Civil), is not FIT for further retention in the services of the DDA and therefore, the Committee recommends his pre-mature retirement from the services in the public interest under Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as he has already completed 30 years of qualifying service."
29. The Committee also noted that the recommendations for premature retirement in respect of above six officials are not by way of punitive measures as the above recommendations for pre-mature retirement from service had been made considering the conduct of the officers and their overall performance and in the public interest. The Representation Committee, which met on 22.06.2020 to review the representations of the officials, including the applicant, had made the following observations:
"(1) Representation of Shri Sunil Chawla, Junior Engineer (Civil)
(i) The Representation Committee has gone through the recommendations of the Review Committee In case of Sh.
Sunil Chawla s/o Sh. Mulk Raj Chawla, Junior Engineer (Civil), (Date of birth-20.10.1961 & Date of appointment in DDA- 06.03.1985). In the recommendations, the Review Committee has recorded that the official has been Issued 06 major (OA No.1333/2020) (15) penalty charge sheets and one major and one minor penalties have been imposed on him which substantiates dereliction of dutles and misconduct repeatedly. The Review Committee also noted that the above official was also facing trial in a criminal case under Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 r/w Section 120- B, IPC la FIR No. 52/04 dated 27.09.2004 registered by ACB/GNCTD while posted in MCD on deputation, Prosecution Sanction was issued on 01.07.2014. The case is still pending investigation and is likely to be finalized at the earliest as reported by ACB/GNCTD. He was also arrested on 26.6.12 and released on bail on 21.07.2012. He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 09.07.2012 vide order dated 06.09.12 and reinstated on 30.1.2013.
Considering the above details, the Review Committee observed that the conduct of Sh. Sunil Chawla S/O Sh. Mulk Raj Chawla, Junior Engineer (Civil), was not FIT for further retention In the services of the DDA and therefore, the Committee recommended his pre-mature retirement from the services in the public interest under Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as he had already completed 30 years of qualifying service. With the approval of appointing authority, the Orders were Issued on 29.08.2019 which were acknowledged by the concerned official on the same day.
(ii) Sh. Sunil Chawla, Junior Engineer (Civil) has submitted representation dated 18.09.2019 read with representation dated 26.09.2019 stating inter alia that out of "six" Major Penalty Charge sheets "in five" he was "Exonerated" and "only one" Minor Penalty was imposed, therefore there being no material before the Review Committee, in as much as there were no adverse remarks in the character roll entries, the integrity was not doubted at any time and the ACR's of the applicant are very good/outstanding/impeccable and do not contain any adverse remarks, regarding Integrity and efficiency, his compulsorily retirement could not have been ordered. He has also stated that a criminal case was registered on 27.09.2004 regarding unauthorized construction in which the cancellation report was filed on dated 26.08.2008 and after some investigation again second cancellation report on dated 29.06.2010 along with supplementary report. Though, thereafter some "further investigation" could be undertaken but nothing could be surfaced against the applicant.
(iii) The Representation Committee has observed that the Review Committee has observed that official was issued 06 major penalty charge sheets and one major and one minor penalty have been imposed on him. However, the correct position is that only one minor penalty had been imposed on him. The Review Committee also observed that the above official was also facing trial in a criminal case under Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 r/w Section 120-B, IPC in FIR No. 52/04 dated 27.09.2004 registered by ACB/GNCTD while posted in MCD on deputation. However, it has also been recorded that the case is still pending investigation and likely to finalize at the earliest as reported by ACB/GNCTD. He was also arrested on 26.6.12 and released on bail on 21.07.2012.
(OA No.1333/2020) (16) He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 09.07.2012 vide order dated 06.09.12 and reinstated on 30.1.2013.
The Representation Committee, after going through the recommendations of Review Committee, the representation of the ex official and also the facts/records has observed that the ex official has brought a fact into notice about Imposition of only one minor penalty was imposed on him and not two as mentioned in the recommendations of Review Committee. However, the fact that the criminal case under investigation was already in notice as clearly recorded in the recommendations by Review Committee.
The Representation Committee observed that no new material facts, which were not already in the knowledge of Review Committee, have been brought in the representation by Sh. Sunil Chawla, JE (Civil) and, therefore, finds no merits to warrant interference with the recommendations of the Review Committee."
As evident from the aforesaid, it is not the case of the applicant that erroneous observation with regard to the penalties imposed on the applicant was glossed over or endorsed. In fact, the Representation Committee clearly noted that only one minor penalty was imposed but the Committee taking into account only one minor penalty, his entire record of service did not deem it appropriate to take a contrary view just because instead of two penalties one major and one minor he was imposed. Reading of the above indicates that the decision was not solely taken on the basis of the penalty imposed or the pending FIR against the applicant but looking at his entire service record.
30. So far as the APAR is concerned, the applicant has appended his ACR which is as follows:
Year Date of Submission Overall Grading
2018-19 19.03.2019 (Online) Outstanding
2017-18 25.07.2018 (Online) Very Good
2016-17 21.03.2017 (Online) Outstanding
2015-16 Manually Not Conveyed
2014-15 Manually Very Good
2013-14 Manually Very Good
2012-13 Manually Very Good
2011-12 Manually Outstanding
2010-11 Manually Not Conveyed
2002-03 Manually Impeccable
2003-04 Manually Impeccable
31. It has been argued that in the absence of any adverse remarks in his appraisal report, his integrity and efficiency could not be doubted without any application of mind. The performance of a (OA No.1333/2020) (17) government servant is reflected in the annual character roll entries and therefore one of the methods of discerning the efficiency, honesty of integrity of a government servant is to look to his character roll entries for the whole tenure from the inception to the date on which decision for his compulsory retirement is taken. It is obvious that if such appraisal reports are studded with adverse entries or the overall categorization of the employee is poor and there is material also to cast doubts upon his integrity, such a government servant cannot be said to be efficient. Efficiency is a bundle of sticks of personal assets, thickest of which is a bundle of stick of "integrity".
32. It is argued that in the instant case, what comes out is that in compulsorily retiring the applicant from service, the authorities themselves were uncertain about the action which was taken ultimately against him and they were not sure whether it would be in public interest to retire him. However, we find that while appending his ACRs nothing has been mentioned about the missing ACRs between 2004-05 to 2009-10 and no reason as assigned for the missing ACRs. On the other hand, there is specific mention that the Review Committee has taken into consideration the entire service record holistically. The applicant was not given any promotion in a span of 35 years as he joined as JE and retired as such. One also cannot gloss over the fact that as many as six major penalty charge sheets were issued to the applicant. The learned counsel for respondents has also drawn our attention that he was in custody in the FIR for about four weeks and his name figured in the FIR under the PC Act though later case was closed.
33. We have also perused the relevant provisions under 56(j) and also gone through the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as contained in OM dated 11th September, 2015 which reads as follows:
"OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject:- Strengthening of administration -Periodical Review under FR 56 (j) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's OM No.25013/1/2013-Estt(A) dated 21/03/2014 on the periodical review under Fundamental Rule 56 or Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules.
(OA No.1333/2020) (18)
2. Various instructions issued on the subject deal with compulsory retirement under the above mentioned provisions. The Supreme Court has observed in State of Gujarat Vs. Umed bhai M. Patel, 2001 (3) SCC 314 as follows:
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.
(iii) "For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer."
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.
(v) Even un-communicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid Departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.
(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.
(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.
3. In every review, the entire service records should be considered. The expression 'service record' will take in all relevant records and hence the review should not be confined to the consideration of the ACR / APAR dossier. The personal file of the officer may contain valuable material. Similarly, the work and performance of the officer could also be assessed by looking into files dealt with by him or in any papers or reports prepared and submitted by him. It would be useful if the Ministry/Department puts together all the data available about the officers and prepares a comprehensive brief for consideration by the Review Committee. Even uncommunicated remarks in the ACRs/APARs may be taken into consideration.
4. In the case of those officers who have been promoted during the last five years, the previous entries in the ACRs may be taken into account if the officer was promoted on the basis of seniority cum fitness, and not on the basis of merit.
5. As far as integrity is considered, the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court may, while upholding compulsory retirement in a case, may be kept in view:
The officer would live by reputation built around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take (OA No.1333/2020) (19) punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his continuance in service would be a menace to public service and injurious to public interest.
Thus while considering integrity of an employee, actions or decisions taken by the employee which do not appear to be above board, complaints received against him, or suspicious property transactions, for which there may not be sufficient evidence to initiate departmental proceedings, may be taken into account. Judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Shri K. Kandaswamy, L.P.S. (TN:1966) in K. Kandaswamy vs Union Of India & Anr, 1996 AIR 277, 1995 SCC (6) 162 is relevant here. There were persistent reports of Shri Kandaswamy acquiring large assets and of his getting money from his subordinates. He also indulged in property transactions which gave rise to suspicion about his bonafides. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld his compulsory retirement under provisions of the relevant Rules.
6. Similarly, reports of conduct unbecoming of a Government servant may also form basis for compulsory retirement. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Of U.P.And Others vs Vijay Kumar Jain, Appeal (civil) 2083 of 2002:
"If conduct of a government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstructs the efficiency in public services, the government has an absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest."
34. We have perused the OM dated 28.08.2000 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India which reads as follows:
"OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: - Periodic Review of Central Government Employees for strengthening of administration under Fundamental Rule (FR) 560)1(l) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 Instructions have been issued from time to time for undertaking periodic review of performance of Government servants with a view to ascertain whether the Government servant should be retained in service or retired from service prematurely, in public interest, as per Fundamental provisions/Rule referred in the subject cited above. In order to bring in better clarity to the existing instructions and enable uniform implementation, an effort has been made to review, consolidate and reiterate the guidelines so far issued on the subject at one place.
2. The objective of Fundamental Rule (FR) 560)1(l) and Rule 48 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, is to strengthen the administrative machinery by developing responsible and efficient administration at all levels and to achieve (OA No.1333/2020) (20) efficiency, economy and speed in the disposal of Government functions. It is clarified that premature retirement of Government servants under these rules is not a penalty. It is distinct from 'Compulsory Retirement', which is one of prescribed penalties under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
3. Provisions relating to pre-mature retirement in the Fundamental Rules and CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 3.1 The Appropriate Authority has the absolute right to retire a Government servant under FR 56(j), FR 56(l) or Rule 48 (1) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as the case may be, if it is necessary to do so in public interest.
**** **** ***** **** 3.4 Rule 48 (1) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 :- At any time after a 3.4 Government servant has completed thirty (30) years' qualifying service, he may be required by the Appointing Authority to retire in the public interest and in the case of such retirement, the Government servant shall be entitled to a retiring pension, provided that the Appointing Authority may also give a notice in writing to a Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire in the public interest or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice.
6. Government may, at any time after a Government servant has attained the age of 50/55 years or completed 30 years of service, as the case may be, retire him pre- maturely in public interest. However, non-adherence to the time-lines as indicated in para 4 above due to certain administrative exigencies shall not take away the powers of Appropriate Authority to pre-maturely retire a Government servant under FR 56(j), 56(l) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore, review of a Government servant for the purposes of these Rules can be undertaken even after he has attained the age of 50/55 years in cases covered by FR 56 (j) or after he has completed 30 years of qualifying service under FR 56(l) / Rule 48 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972.
7. There is also no bar on the Government to review any such case again where it was decided earlier to retain the officer, but the Appropriate/Appointing Authority is of the opinion that it is expedient to undertake the review again on account of changed circumstances, in public interest. In such cases, the Appropriate Authority is expected to demonstrate visible meticulousness as such Government servants have been found effective on earlier occasion for retention in service.
8. Composition of Review and Representation Committee:
8.1 The concerned Secretary of the Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) will constitute Review Committees of two members at appropriate level as under:-
(OA No.1333/2020) (21)
(i) In case of officers holding Group A posts :- Review Committee shall be headed by the Secretary of the concerned CCA. Where there are Boards viz CBDT, CBEC, Railway Board, 3 Postal Board, Telecom Commission etc, the Review Committee shall be headed by the Chairman of such Board.
(ii) In case of Group B (Gazetted) officers :-
Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary level officer shall head the Review Committee.
(iii) In the case of Non-Gazetted employees :-
(a) An officer of the level of Joint Secretary will head the Committee. However, in case the Appointing Authority is lower in rank than a Joint Secretary, then an officer of the level of Director/Deputy Secretary will be the head.
(b) In the case of Non-Gazetted employees in other than centralised cadres, Head of Department/Head of the Organisation shall decide the composition of the Review Committee.
Chief Vigilance Officer, in case of Gazetted officers, or his representative in case of non-Gazetted officers, will be associated in case of record reflecting adversely on the integrity of any employee.
8.2 The composition of Representation Committee for all Government servants shall consist of :-
(a) A Secretary to the Government of India to be nominated by the Cabinet Secretary;
(b) Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary in the Cabinet
Secretariat; and
(c) One member nominated by the CCA."
35. We find a serious discrepancies in the manner in which the Representation Committee has been constituted to consider the applicant's representation. Para 8 of the aforesaid DoP&T OM captioned "Composition of Review and Representation Committee"
mentions the following:
"8.1 The concerned Secretary of the Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) will constitute Review Committees of two members at appropriate level as under :-
(i) In case of officers holding Group A posts :- Review Committee shall be headed by the Secretary of the concerned CCA. Where there are Boards viz CBDT, CBEC, Railway Board, 3 Postal Board, Telecom Commission etc, (OA No.1333/2020) (22) the Review Committee shall be headed by the Chairman of such Board.
(ii) In case of Group B (Gazetted) officers :-
Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary level officer shall head the Review Committee.
(III) In the case of Non-Gazetted employees :-
(a) An officer of the level of Joint Secretary will head the Committee. However, in case the Appointing Authority is lower in rank than a Joint Secretary, then an officer of the level of Director/Deputy Secretary will be the head.
(b) In the case of Non-Gazetted employees in other than centralised cadres, Head of Department/Head of the Organisation shall decide the composition of the Review Committee.
Chief Vigilance Officer, in case of Gazetted officers, or his representative in case of non-Gazetted officers, will be associated in case of record reflecting adversely on the integrity of any employee.
8.2 The composition of Representation Committee for all Government servants shall consist of :-
(a) A Secretary to the Government of India to be nominated by the Cabinet Secretary;
(b) Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat; and
(c) One member nominated by the CCA."
36. It is evident from the above that in the case of Group B Non- Gazetted employees in other than centralised cadres, Head of Department/Head of the Organisation shall decide the composition of the Review Committee. However, so far the Representation Committee is concerned for all Government servants it will consist of (a) A Secretary to the Government of India to be nominated by the Cabinet Secretary and (b) Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat. The OM also provides for an Internal Committee as entailed at Para 9 as follows:
"9. Constitution of Internal Committee:- In addition to the above, Secretary of the CCA is also empowered to constitute an Internal Committee comprising of such officer(s) as deemed fit to assist the Review Committee. These Committees will ensure that the service record of the Government servants being reviewed, along 4 with a summary, bringing out all relevant information, is submitted to the Cadre Authorities at least three months prior to the due date of review."
(OA No.1333/2020) (23)
37. The learned counsel for the respondents vide written submissions dated 28.07.2025 has drawn our attention to such Committees constituted in DDA as follows:
"DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CONFIDENTIAL BRANCH) E.O. No. 1448 Dated : 24/10/2016 ORDERS In supersession of E.O. No. 796 dt. 29.05.2014, this office letter dt. 05.02.16 and in reference to the office under F. No. A32022/2/2015- Admn-I dt. 16.01.16 MoUD, Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi/Chairman, DDA is pleased to approve the re-constitution of following Committees comprising of officers as under, for review of cases of DDA employees on attaining the age of 50/55 years or completion of 30 years/30 years of qualifying service which occurs earlier under FR-56(J) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rule 1972.
SCREENING COMMITTEE S. Level of post held by the employee Composition of Screening No Committee 1. Group A Post 1. Commissioner (P)
Officers upto the Grade pay of Rs.10000/- 2. Director (P) in PB-4 (Pre-revised) Officers upto the Grade pay of Rs.8700/- 1. Commissioner (P) in PB-4, Rs.7600/-, 6600/- 5400/- in PB-3 2. Director (P) (Pre-revised) 2 Group 'B' officers (Gaz.) 1. Director (P) Group 'B' officers (Non-Gaz.) 2.Concerned Dy. Director (P) 3 Group 'C' officer 1. Dy. Director (P) concerned Group 'B' officers (Non-Gaz.) 2. Asstt. Director (P) Concerned 4 Work Charged officials 1. Director (W/C)
2. Dy. Director (W/C) REVIEW COMMITTEE SL. Level of post held by the employee Review Committee No
1. Officers upto the Grade pay of 1. Secretary (UD) Rs.10000/- in PB-4 2. Addl. Secretary (UD) Officers upto the Grade pay of Rs.8700/- in PB-4, Rs.7600/-, 6600/- 5400/- in PB- 1. Secretary (UD) 3 2. Addl. Secretary (UD) 2 Group 'B' officers (Gaz.) 1. Pr. Commissioner (P) Group 'B' officers (Non-Gaz.) 2. Head of the Deptt.
3. Commissioner (Pers.) Non-Gaz. 1. Commissioner (Pers.)
2. Head of the Deptt.
3. Director (Pers.) (in case of Ministerial/PS etc.) 3 Group 'C' officer 1. Director (P)
2. Concerned Deptt.
3. Representative nominated by HOD (OA No.1333/2020) (24) 4 Work Charged officials 1. Director (Personnel)
2. Director (Work-Charged)
3. Director (Hort)/SE The Chief Vigilance officer will be associated in cases of Gazetted officers and his representative will be associated in case of Non- Gazetted officers, in case of record reflecting adversely on the integrity of any employee."
"DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CONFIDENTIAL BRANCH) E.O. No. 431 Dated : 15.05.2020 ORDERS In supersession of E.O. No. 796 dt. 29.05.2014, this office letter dt. 05.02.2016 EO No.1448 dated 24.10.2016, the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi/Chairman, DDA is pleased to approve the re-constitution of following Committees comprising of officers as under, for review of cases of DDA officers/officials on attaining the age of 50/55 years or completion of 30 of service/30 years of qualifying service which occurs earlier under FR-56(J) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rule 1972.
S. Title of Appointing Screening Review Representation service of Authority Authority Authority Authority No. post Group 'A' 1 A post Chairman 1. Commissioner 1.Pr. 1. VC, DDA carrying a (Personnel) Commissioner 2.Engineer grade pay 2. Director(P) (Personnel) Member/ of Rs.10000 Concerned Finance in PB-4 of 2. Concerned HO Member Rs.37400- 67000 and above except those appointed by Govt. of India 2 A post Vice- 1. Commissioner 1.Pr. 1.Pr.Commr.
carrying a Chairman (Personnel) Commissioner (Personnel) grade pay 2. Director(P) (Personnel) 2. Commr-
of Rs.8700 Concerned Cum-
in PB-4 and 2.Concerned Secretary
Rs.7600/- HOD
6600 and
5400/- in
PB-3 of
Rs.15600-
39100/-
Group 'B'
1. A post Any full 1. Director(Pers) 1. Commissioner 1. Engineer
carrying the time Concerned (Personnel) Member
following member 2. Dy.Director 2. Finance
Grade Pays (Pers) 2.Concerned Member
Rs.5400/-, HOD
Rs.4800/-,
& Rs.4600/-
in the scale
(OA No.1333/2020)
(25)
of pay of
Rs.9300-
34800/- in
PB-2
2 A post Commr. 1.Dy.Director 1. Director (P) 1. Director (P)
carrying a (Pers) (P) Concerned Concerned (Other than
grade pay 2.Dy.Director concerned)
of (CR) 2. Director level
Rs.4200/- in officer to be 2. Dy.Director
the scale of nominated by (Pers) (other
pay of concerned HOD than
Rs.9300- concerned)
34800/- in to be
PB-2 nominated
by Commr
(Pers)
Group 'C'
1 A post Commr. 1.Dy.Director 1. Director (P) 1. Director (P)
carrying the (Pers) (P) Concerned Concerned (Other than
Grade Pay 2.Dy.Director concerned)
of (CR) 2. Director level
Rs.2800/- officer to be 2. Dy.Director
Rs.2400/-, nominated by (Personnel)
Rs.2000/-, concerned HOD (other than
Rs.1900/- concerned)
in the scale to be
of pay of nominated
Rs.5200- by Commr
20200/- in (Pers)
Pay PB-1
2 A post Director 1.Dy.Director 1. Director (P) 1. Director (P)
carrying a (Pers) (P) Concerned Concerned (Other than
grade pay 2.Assistant concerned)
of Director (P) 2. Director level
Rs.1800/- Concerned officer to be 2. Dy.Director in the scale nominated by (Personnel) of pay of concerned HOD (other than Rs.5200- concerned) 20200/- in to be Pay PB-1 nominated by Commr (Pers) Group 'D' 1 A post Director 1.Dy.Director 1. Director (P) 1. Director (P) carrying a (Pers) (P) Concerned Concerned (Other than grade pay 2.Assistant concerned) of Director (P) 2. Director level Rs.1300/- Concerned officer to be 2. Dy.Director Rs.1400/-, nominated by (Personnel) Rs.1600/-, concerned HOD (other than Rs.1650/-in concerned) Rs.14440/- to be in IS Scale nominated by Commr (Pers) It is evident from Notification dated 24.10.2016 that the Group "B"
(Non-Gazetted) officer, the Screening Committee consisted of Director (P) and Concerned Deputy Director (P) while the Review Committee (OA No.1333/2020) (26) included Commissioner (P), Head of the Department and Director (Personal) (in case of Ministerial/PS etc.), there is no mention of any Representation Committee. Since the case of the applicant was considered by the Screening Committee on 29.10.2018 and by the Review Committee on 02.08.2019, it can be safely concluded that the order dated 24.10.2016 is applicable in the instant case, i.e. prior to the order dated 15.05.2020 which was issued in suppression of the order dated 24.10.2016. It is not in doubt that the impugned order was issued by the Commissioner (P) who was the disciplinary authority and who also chaired the meeting of the Review Committee. Therefore, the competent disciplinary authority, who passed the impugned order, also chaired the meeting of the Review Committee defying the very logic of such review. Infirmity is also noticed with regard to composition of Representation Committee. The said Committee which sat on 22.06.2020 was apparently constituted in the light of order dated 15.05.2020 and thus it consisted of Director (Housing)-II (nominated by Commissioner (P)] and Dy. Director (P)1 (nominated by Commissioner (P). The minutes of the meeting reads as follows:
"The minutes of the meeting of the Representation Committee held on 22.06.2020 to review the representations of the officials/officers retired prematurely under FR 56(J)/Rule 48 of (CCS) Pension Rules, 1972."
The following officers were present:
1) Sh. S.P. Agarwal, Director (Housing)-II (nominated by Commissioner (P)]
2) Sh. D. K. Gupta, Dy. Director (P)1 (nominated by Commissioner (P)."
It made the following recommendations:
"With respect to Sh. Sunil Chawla S/O Sh. Mulk Raj Chawla, Junior Engineer (Civil), (Date of birth-20.10.1961 & Date of appointment in DDA-06.03.1985) the Review Committee has noted following facts:
i) The official has been issued 06 major penalty charge sheets.
One major and one minor penalty have been imposed on him which substantiates dereliction of duties and misconduct repeatedly.
ii). The official is also facing trial in a criminal case under Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 r/w Section 120-B, IPC in FIR No. 52/04 dated 27.09.2004 registered by ACB/GNCTD while posted in MCD on deputation. Prosecution Sanction was issued on (OA No.1333/2020) (27) 01.07.2014. The case is still pending investigation and likely to finalize at the earliest as reported by ACB/GNCTD
iii) He was also arrested on 26.6.12 and released on bail on 21.07.2012. He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 09.07.2012 vide order dated 06.09.12 and reinstated on 30.1.2013.
Considering the above details, the Review Committee observes that the conduct of Sh. Sunil Chawla S/O Sh. Mulk Raj Chawla, Junior Engineer (Civil), is not FIT for further retention in the services of the DDA and therefore, the Committee recommends his pre-mature retirement from the services in the public interest under Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as he has already completed 30 years of qualifying service."
The Review Committee consisted of the following:
1. Sh. Rajiv Gandhi Chairman Commissioner (Personnel)
2. Sh. R.K.Singh HOD/Member Chief Engineer (QAC) (For Engg.Wing)
3. Smt. Manjulata Khatri, Member Director (Vigilance)-I
4. Sh. Ashok Kumar HOD/Member Director (Hort.) South East (For Hort.Wing)
5. Sh. Anil Sharma Member Secretary Director (Personnel)-I
38. The recommendations of the Review Committee were considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the administrative prudence and the principles of natural justice demanded that the competent disciplinary authority should not have been Member/Chairman of the said Review Committee. But to our surprise we find that the authority who had issued the impugned order i.e. Commissioner (Personnel) was also the Chairman of the Review Committee. The representation of the applicant against the order of the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Commissioner (Personnel) was considered by the Representation Committee. The minutes of the meeting of the Representation Committee dated 22.06.2020 starts with the following notings:
"The constitution of various Committees have been approved by Hon'ble Lt. Governor as circulated vide E.O. No. 431 dated 15.05.2020. The Committee comprising of the following officers has been designated ad 'Representation Committee' in respect of officials in Group-B carrying GP of Rs. 4200/-, Rs.2400/-and Rs.1900/-in PB-2.
The meeting of the Representation Committee was held on
22.06.2020 for consideration of representations of officers who have been retired pre-maturely under FR 56 (1)/ Rule 48 of (GCS) Pension Rules, 1972. The following officers were present:
(OA No.1333/2020) (28)
1) Sh. S.P. Agarwal, Director (Housing)-II (nominated by Commissioner (P)]
2) Sh. D. K. Gupta, Dy. Director (P)1 (nominated by Commissioner (P)."
39. It is obvious from the aforesaid that the Representation Committee consisted of Director and Deputy Director, nominated by Commissioner (P), who considered the representation of the applicant against the order passed by the Review Committee which itself was chaired by the Commissioner (P). We find this to be entirely devoid of administrative prudence and principles of natural justice. In a nutshell, the competent authority, who passed the impugned order was Commissioner (P), who also chaired the Review Committee meeting reviewing his own order and the same authority also nominated the members of the Representation Committee as well. It goes without saying that this puts a question mark on the entire decision making process, which suffers from serious infirmity in as much as the disciplinary authority by being a member of the Review Committee was mandated to review his own decision. Further, the Representation Committee which was to go into the merits of the decision taken by the Review Committee consisted of the members nominated by the Commissioner (P). Needless to say that two members who should have been at a higher pedestal than the members of the Review Committee in fact were junior to the members of the Review Committee. Therefore, the entire exercise of the Representation Committee becomes futile, devoid of administrative propriety and principles of natural justice.
40. Though the learned counsel for the respondents has emphasized that the said Representation Committee was re-constituted after approval of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor/Chairman, DDA, we cannot overlook the fact that a group of subordinate officers considered the decision of the Review Committee. Learned counsel also submits that the recommendations of the Review Committee and the Representation Committee are recommendatory in nature and ultimately it is for the competent authority to take a view in the matter. He also contends that this ground has not been raised in the OA, we do not subscribe to such view. Once a serious anomaly in the decision making process has come to our notice, which vitiates the entire proceeding, the same cannot be overlooked by us. Moreover, (OA No.1333/2020) (29) the process of consideration of such matters at various layers i.e. Review Committee and Representation Committee was not a mere formality but to ensure a well considered decision and uphold the principle of natural justice. It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited but it is well within the competence of the courts to interfere if the decision making process is faulted.
41. In the matter of B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. The Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.
42. Also in the matter of Union of India & Ors. vs. P. Gunasekaran4 (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down the broad parameters for the exercise of jurisdiction of 4 (2015) 2 SCC 610 judicial review. The Court held as under:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(OA No.1333/2020) (30)
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
The instant case is squarely covered by the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, in as much as there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and the decision has not been taken according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf.
43. In the circumstances, the OA is allowed and pass the following orders:
i) The impugned orders dated 29.08.2019 and 10.08.2022 are quashed and set aside.
ii) The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service with effect from 29.08.2019 with all consequential benefits.
(iii) The aforesaid directions will be complied with as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
44. The O.A. is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /kdr/