SRI KRISHNA Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned the order dated 17th April, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No.243/2009 titled as Sh.Sri Krishna v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, dismissing his original application filed against the punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect imposed by order dated 25th October, 2000 and dismissal of his appeal by order dated 30th April, 2002 which were challenged by the petitioner after retirement from service on 30th November, 2008, in January, 2009.

(2.) The Tribunal has held that the application is not only barred by limitation as provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 but also suffers from delay and latches. The petitioner was charge sheeted on 6th October, 1997 and at that time he was posted as Zonal Engineer in city zone of MCD and was holding two charges as Zonal Engineer (Building) and Zonal Engineer (Dangerous Building). The allegation against him was that he committed gross negligence and misconduct and failed to maintain devotion to duty by connivance with the owner/builder of property No.1721, Cheera Khana, Nai Sarak, Delhi. A request for repair was received from Sh.Atul Mehta, owner of the property which was granted immediately on the same date by the petitioner without ascertaining any comment from the dangerous building department and without verifying that a show cause notice under Section 344 (i) and 343 of DMC Act had already been issued to the said owner. The owner of the building was able to get a stay on the basis of the reply received from the petitioner to the request of the owner of the building for permission for repair.

(3.) The enquiry officer had held taking into consideration the different facts which were proved against him that there was connivance between the charged official that is the petitioner and the owner of the building and the disciplinary authority agreeing with the report of the enquiry officer rightly imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect. The order imposing punishment dated 25th October, 2000 was affirmed in appeal by order dated 30th April, 2002.