DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. H.L. SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) ­ in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 11.10.2013 in T.A. No.11/2011, whereby the applicant/respondent's dismissal from the post of Junior Engineer was quashed and he was directed to be reinstated with 50% arrears of salary and emoluments from the date of dismissal, i.e. 16.04.1985.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the applicant was, at the relevant time, holding the post and discharging the functions of Junior Engineer in the DDA. In the course of his duties, he was assigned the work of supervising a housing project, i.e. C -2, MIG Housing Pocket, Bodella. On 28.12.1982 and on the next date, i.e. 29.12.1982, a total of 12 flats collapsed in that complex/ block. The applicant and few other officials were immediately placed under suspension, and later were issued with charge sheet on 16.05.1983. The gist of the charges against the applicant was that he did not exercise proper supervision and that the use of substandard construction materials, combined with his omission resulted in collapse of the building. The applicant denied the charges. Inquiry proceedings were conducted by an officer who did not belong to the DDA, i.e. an officer deployed by the Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries, Chief Vigilance Commissioner. After conclusion of those proceedings, a report was submitted on 31.10.1984 which held, inter alia, that the charges against the applicant were proved. In compliance with the existing regulations governing DDA in that regard the applicant was issued with letter/ notice on 21.12.1984 asking him to reply to the proposal for imposition of penalty. He did so and resisted the move; he also countered the findings of the Inquiry Officer ­ by the reply dated 17.01.1985. It is in this background that the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal on 16.04.1985.

(3.) IN this background, the CAT by order dated 23.01.2012 further remitted the matter to the appellate authority directing it to decide the appeal. The applicant was apparently aggrieved and approached this Court, which required the CAT to go into the matter considering that the applicant had suffered on account of long delay. It is in these circumstances that the CAT, by the impugned order of 11.10.2013, held that the order of penalty was illegal.