D P LALWANI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 28.2.1992 issued by the respondents to the petitioner. The charges relate to the period during the years 1982-83 while the petitioner was serving as a Junior Engineer, Construction Division No.1, DDA, Jhandewalan. It is alleged in the said chagesheet that 'during execution of the work of development of land in New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur and surrounding arrears, the petitioner was the Junior Engineer-in-Charge and was assigned the duty of supervising the execution of the said work. It is alleged that the work done was examined by CTE's Organisation In 1988 and found not only deficiencies in the work but also found that the work was carried out contrary to the sanctioned plan. It is alleged 'in the writ petition that the charges in respect of which the aforesaid chargesheet was issued , relate to the period during 1982-83 and, therefore, there is inordinate delay in serving the memo of charges, for which there is no acceptable explanation, which itself Is a ground of quashing of the charges.

(2.) A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the pipeline in question was not laid as per sanctioned municipal plan, that the alignment of the pipeline was changed and that the boundary wall was constructed over the pipeline which caused difficulty in its maintenance, and that on inspection lesser quantity of lead was found to have been filled up in the joints of the pipeline leading to leakage therein. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the charges drawn up against the petitioner cannot be said to be stale and that there was no undue or inordinate delay in issuing the charge sheet.

(3.) It was submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the chargesheet is liable to be quashed, which was issued after more than 9 years from the date of agreement and execution of the aforesaid work and that no explanation has been given by the respondents as to why there was such inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo. It is also stated that the petitioner carried out the orders of the superior and also carried out measurements and, therefore, the charges are false.