SHRI I.D. GUPTA Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of respondent No.2, Director of Industries, Delhi Administration, Delhi, as affirmed in appeal by the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration, Delhi, respondent No.3 by which the petitioner has been given a penalty of censure.

(2.) The petitioner joined service of Delhi Administration on 30.10.1965 as Assistant Gram Ekai Organiser in the Directorate of Industries. While working as such the petitioner's duty also included the duties regarding work pertaining to rural industrialisation at Badli and other industrial estates in the State. On 7.10.1969 the petitioner was placed under suspension and as has been explained in the return an enquiry was contemplated against him. In March,1970 the petitioner was served with a memorandum informing him that it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule 1965, (hereinafter to be called the Rules), in respect of the charges which were set out in annexure I to the Memorandum (Annexure E to the writ petition). Annexure II (Annexure F to petition) to the memorandum contained the statement of allegation with respect to the charges. Annexure III (Annexure G to the petition) to the memorandum contained a list of witnesses and Annexure IV (Annexure H to the petition) to the memorandum was a list of document. The petitioner was asked to file his written statement of his defence within 10 days. The memorandum contained two charges Charge No. 1 related to the action of the petitioner in not including the case of one M/s. J.M. Baweja of New Delhi in the draw of lots held on 28.5.1969 with the result that the applicant missed the opportunity for no fault of his, Charge No.2 related to the action of the petitioner for not including the name of M/s. Jayvee Products (India) Delhi in the list of units which were to be allotted industrial plots at Badli Industrial Estate with the result that it was deprived of allotment of plot. The statement of allegation on the basis of the charges was given in annexure II to the memorandum and for facility of reference the same is reproduced as under:-

(3.) The petitioner on receipt of this memorandum instead of replying to the same took up the position that as certain documents have been mentioned in Annexure IV and they not been sent to him this same may be supplied to him and requested for supply documents, for example, all the case filed in original regarding allotment of industrial plot for whom draw of lots was held on 28.5.1969. Movement register, list of proceedings etc. The petitioner followed his request of 2.4.1970 with further letter of 6.4.1970 asking for some other files like main file regarding Badli Industrial Estate-allotment of plots. Another letter of 1.5.1970 asking for the charter of duties of Assistant Gram Ekai Organiser was also written to the Director of Industries. The Director of Industries, respondent No.2 however, by his letter dated 20.5.1970 informed the petitioner that his request for the inspection of document could not be acceded to at that stage and that he should file his statement of defence within a week. The petitioner, however, still insisted by his letter of 2.6.1970 that he must be provided with all the documents and files as he had asked for and in the absence of the same it was not possible for him to give his reply. Respondent No.2, however, informed the petitioner by his letter dated 1.7.1970 that if the petitioner did not submit his written statement of defence within a week from the date of receipt of the letter, disciplinary proceedings would be launched against him ex-parte. In the meantime by his order dated 16.7.1970, respondent No.2 revoked the suspension order passed on the petitioner. By his representation, dated 21.7.1970, the petitioner wrote to respondent No.2 again objecting that he had not been given copies of the entire material and documents asked for and that in its absence he was denying from memory the charges and reserved his rights to the submission of detailed defence when copies had been made available and also reserved his rights to submit a list of more documents. It is of the details given in the statement of allegations regarding charge No.1 was given by the petitioner. As regards charge No.2 it was stated that he had been given a warning by the D.D.I (R) earlier and therefore this matter could not have been included in the charge sheet. It may be mentioned that the Community Project Officer (Industries) by his order dated 20th July, 1969, Annexure Q/T had already warned the petitioner because he had failed to include the name of M/s. Jayvee Products (India) Delhi for the purpose of allotment. The petitioner had been warned of his carelessness and asked to exercise greater care in future. Presumably it was because of this that the petitioner objected to this charge being included second time in the memorandum. Ultimately respondent No.2 by his order dated 15.2.1971 held the petitioner guilty of a serious lapse on his part in the discharge of his duty with regard to charge No.1 and awarded him penalty of censure. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.3, but the same was rejected by him vide his order dated 13.9.1971. These two orders have been challenged in the present writ petition.