DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. R V BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Delhi Development Authority, impugns the order dated 29th February, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in TA No.151 of 2007, titled Shri R.V. Bansal v. DDA whereby the memorandum of charges issued to the respondent was set aside and it was held that the respondent is deemed to have retired normally and granting all the consequential benefits to him.

(2.) The respondent had filed a writ petition before this court claiming that the charge sheet issued to him and the proposed inquiry against him was illegal. The respondent was an Assistant Engineer. He has since retired after attaining the age of superannuation. The respondent was originally appointed with Municipal Corporation of Delhi and later on came to Delhi Development Authority and was promoted as an Assistant Engineer in 1982. He was in-charge of specific work relating to construction of MIG houses during the period March, 1982 to December, 1982. relating to construction of MIG houses, a memorandum of charge had been issued to him on 20th July, 1989, seven years after he was transferred from the said work alleging that while working as Assistant Engineer for the period March 1982 to December 1982, the work under his supervision was improper and defective and the petitioner had to shell out funds in favour of the contractors on account of the defective work. Though the respondent filed a prompt reply but no further proceedings had been initiated against the respondent till 1992. An inquiry officer had been appointed to look into the charges in 1992 only. This has not been disputed that the Chief Engineer had submitted his finding in respect of alleged defective work on 5th March, 1983 and on 27th July, 1983 an explanation was called from the respondent which was promptly replied by him.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of Shri Alok Swarup, Director (Vigilance), stipulating that considering the findings on 3rd February, 1984, the matter was referred to the Vigilance Commission, however, from 1984 to till 1989 nothing was done and on 20th July, 1989, major penalty chargesheet was issued after five years. Again reply was filed by the respondent, however, for another two years inquiry officer was not appointed. On 10th January, 1992, an officer of CVC was appointed as an investigating officer and thereafter different investigating officers were appointed.