CHANDER SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order of his reversion dated 10.1.1989 (AnnexureP-11) whereby on the basis of a disciplinary enquiry he has been reduced in rank to the level of LDC from the stage he was promoted to UDC.

(2.) The relevant facts set out in the petition for determining the controversy are that the petitioner was appointed as LDC with the respondent in 1965 and he was promoted to the post of UDC on 1.2.1969 and he was assigned the duties of Rent Supervisor in JJ Department of the respondent from 1974. It appears the petitioner's services were terminated original only under the provisions of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services), 1965 vide Annexure P-1 dated 28.2.1978, which was later revoked by the respondent and thereafter he was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings contemplated against him. Ultimately, the petitioner was charge sheeted on 5.10.1981 (Annexure P-4) on certain charges, inter alia, that while working as Rent Collector in JJ Department of the DDA during the period from 5/77 to 2/78, the petitioner deliberately issued receipts No.G-459 and G-460 to help Shri V.K. Garg, EO, NDMC in procuring plots by illegal means thereby depriving the rightful owners S/Sh. Mool Chand and Jaswant Singh of the plots. He issued receipts in favour of Smt. Mohini Garg, W/o Shri V.K. Garg and Shri Sanjay Garg, S/oShri V.K. Garg in an irregular manner. S/Shri Mool Chand and Jaswant Singh were the original allottees of plot Nos.G-459 and G-460 at Shakurpur Resettlement Colony and had been allotted allotment slips during the clearance scheme. The petitioner by his above acts exhibited lack of integrity and displayed conduct unbecoming of a Government servant thereby violating Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

(3.) Consequently Mr. O.P. Verma was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry. The Enquiry Officer held the enquiry and submitted his report dated 15.10.1985. In this report, the charges framed against the petitioner were not proved.