V K AGARWAL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case a Charge-sheet dated 2.3.1994 was issued to the Petitioner. Shri P.K. Jain, Junior Engineer was also charged along with the Petitioner in connection with the same incident. Shri Jain filed CWP No. 3344/1996. It is alleged by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the issues that have arisen in both the writ petitions are similar. This submission has not been controverted.In Paragraph 16 the Reply of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) "it is submitted that in the case of shri P.K. Jain with whom parity is sought to be drawn, he had challenged the charge sheet at the initial stages and not after the proceedings were over. No parity can therefore be drawn in the two cases."

(2.) Mr. P.K. Jain's Petition was allowed by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Usha Mehra. The Order was affirmed by the Division Bench. In the Order of the Single Judge, it was observed as follows:-

(3.) The contention of Mr. Sabharwal, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/DDA is in essence a reiteration of the submission made in Paragraph 16 of the Counter Affidavit. It is vehemently argued that since the Inquiry has already been completed and the final order has not been pronounced only because of the interim orders passed by this Court, no prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner by the alleged delay. Hence, the decisions wherein it has been emphasised that in cases of delay the Petitioner is bound to show prejudice, would apply in full force. Mr. Sabharwal had sought to rely on those precedents but I find that this would be a needless exercise in the present case. The fact of the matter is that the Petitioner had been charged along with Shri P.K. Jain. In the writ petition filed by Shri Jain the delay in the proceedings have been found sufficient reason for quashing the charge-sheet and all consequent proceedings. I see no reason as to why these orders, affirmed by the Division Bench, should not also apply to the present petition. Mr. Sabharwal's contention is that the Petitioner's role and his obligation and duties in the present case, are different to that of Shri P.K. Jain. This argument appears attractive at first blush. However, it must be borne in mind that in P.K. Jain's case the proceedings were quashed because of inordinate delay. The event on which the charge-sheet was predicated pertain to the same period. The result in both the writ petitions should be the same.