J K GOEL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vijender Jain, J.-Counsel for the appellant has contended that his matter may be disposed of in terms of the decision in DDA v. B.R.Sehgal in LPA No. 955/2002 decided on 2nd February, 2005 where Division Bench of this Court has held that there was a delay on the part of the respondent to take expeditious measure and the attempt was only to cover up the inaction of his officer. Aggreeing with the impugned order which was challenged by the respondent the Division Bench held as under: "We are in agreement with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that after a passage of two decades the finding of the enquiry may be inconclusive or inaccurate. The construction is bound to undergo the change to a large extent which seriously jeopardizes the defence of the officer. It was in view thereof that the conclusion has reached by the learned Single Judge that the right of the petitioner therein for speedy trial would be thrown to the winds if in such a case the inquiry is permitted to proceed further"

(2.) On the basis of the aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the DDA was dismissed by the Division Bench. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Mr. Apurb Lal has contended that this appeal may be allowed as the appellant before this Court is Junior Engineer, whereas the charges pertaining to the same period against B.R. Sehgal who was the Executive Engineer in whose case the learned Single Judge has given the finding that there was inordinate delay in initiation of the inquiry and on that ground the charge sheet was quashed. The same having upheld by the Division Bench, the appellant in the present case cannot be made to suffer as that would amount to applying two different yardsticks in the same case. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent Ms. Alpana Poddar has contended that in the case before hand the learned Single Judge has come to a finding that the delay was not attributable to the respondent.

(3.) We have perused the impugned order and heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the impugned order, we do not find that there is any difference between the stand taken in B.R. Sehgal's case and in the present case. As a matter of fact the work was inspected in the year 1983 and the file was sent to the CVC on 20th December, 1988. There is no explanation for the delay of five years for sending the file to the CVC. The advice from CVC was received on 7th April, 1989 and the charge sheet was issued on 1992. Apparently there is inordinate delay of 9 years.