Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

157.DW2 has further deposed that NOC/completion certificate/occupancy certificate is issued by Executive Engineer of the Building of the Zone and that the DC of the Zone can also give the said certificate.

158.DW2 has further deposed that compounding of any unauthorized construction or deviation from sanctioned building plan are basically dealt with by the JE (Building), who submits his report further to Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer and JE calculates the compounding fees, which is liable to be cross checked by the superior officers, as per Building Bye Laws and Master Plan.

180.That in the order of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, in which accused A. P. Sharma (A2) was exonerated , it is observed that the deviation from the sanctioned building plan were found during the inspection carried out in 2006 and not during the tenure of accused A. P. Sharma(A2) when he obtained the approval for completion certificate and that the height of the building is to be taken from the road level and not from the plinth level because the hotel is located in a low lying area. Further that, as per the bye laws, the floor below the road level should be treated as basement.

191.The record indicates that on 14.08.01, Junior Engineer(B) without revisiting the site to clarify the position, lodged FIR, which Ex.PW4/B­2 in file, Ex.PW4/B, without mentioning therein the complete details of deviations/unauthorized construction in the building and further got issued notice, dated 14.08.01, which is Ex.PW4/B­3, under the signatures of the then Assistant Engineer(B). Admittedly, the owner replied to the said notice, vide reply, Ex.PW4/B­4 on 20.08.01. Thereafter, CBI vs. N.K. Grover & Ors. 69 of 154 pages Assistant Engineer(B) instructed the Junior Engineer on 22.08.2001 to visit the site again and to go through the plan, submitted by the owner. That the file was marked to JE but PW4­S.K. Meena neither visited the site nor he issued the second notice for demolition to the owner, thereafter.

5. I have gone through the written and oral contentions of the appellant. The impugned penalty order, his representation submitted to the Disciplinary Authority and relevant record of the CBI vs. N.K. Grover & Ors. 95 of 154 pages case. The main contention of the appellant is that inquiry officer failed to consider that deviations from the sanctioned building plan were found during the inspection carried out in the year 2006 and not during his tenure when he had duly processed and obtained approval of the competent authority for issue of completion certificate. Secondly, the height of the building is to be taken from the road level and not from the plinth level because the hotel is located in a low lying area. Accordingly, as per the bye law produced by the appellant the floor below the road level should be treated as basement. It is also to be considered that the proposal for approving the 'Completion Certificate' prepared by the appellant was approved by DC(NGZ) after the Executive Engineer & Superintending Engineer had duly recommended the same. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the height of the building should not be taken from the foundation level merits consideration.