DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAMESH CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Letters Patent Appeal No. 123 of 1999 has filed by the Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA) challenging the Judgment and order dated 27.10.1998 of the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 583 of 1997 whereby the learned Judge has allowed the writ petition quashing the orders dated 16.4.1991 and 15.9.1991 of the DDA, while directing reinstatement of the respondent herein hi service of the DDA with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts of the case, as emerged from the documents on record, are that the respondent herein was appointed in the service of DDA on 27.7.1981 as Junior Engineer. In January, 1983 he was transferred to the Housing Division No.4 of the appellant-DDA In August, 1983, the respondent was directed to take charge of construction of 237 MIG dwelling units in Pocket KG-1, Vikaspurl, New Delhi from Mr. A.K.Chopra, the officer in-charge of the said construction work. On 29.8.1983 the responent took over charge subject to verifications. On 22.12.1983, It was found that items in the charge of the respondent fell short. On detection of shortfall during stock verification, the respondent was charged as follows :

(3.) On the basis of material on record, the Enquiry Offcer submitted a report dated 30.4.1990 holding the responent guilty of the charge framed. A show-cause notice dated 27.9.1990 was served on the respondent calling upon him to show cause why a penalty of compulsory retirement from service be not Imposed. Taking the reply of the respondent Into conisderatlon, the Vice-Chairman of the appellant-DDA Imposed penalty of compulsory retirement. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Lt. Governor under Regulation 22(1) of DDA (Salary, Allowance and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1961. The appeal was rejected vide order dated 5.9.1991 Being aggrieved thereof, the respondent Bled a suit for declaration that his compulsory retirement is Illegal and that he continues to be in service of the appellant-DDA; as also a declaration that the order of recovery of Rs.32,000/- from the terminal benefits is illegal and void. This suit was filed with an application for condonation of delay. On 16.10.1992, the respondent moved an application for amendment of the plaint In order to explain the delay In Institution of the suit. It is the averment of the respondent that the suit was taking a long time and, therefore, during pendency of the suit he Sled a writ petition before the High Court being Civil Writ Petition NO. 683/1997 with an undertaking to withdraw the suit. It was the case of the respondent before the learned Single Judge that the Inquiry Offcer could not have returned EL finding of guilt as it was a cause of no evidence. Consequently, the order Imposing penalty was also bad.