DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. I.J. GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order dated 09.01.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') by which the OA filed by the respondent was allowed and the impugned order by which the Disciplinary Authority had imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years with cumulative effect was set aside.

(2.) THE basic facts are not in dispute that the respondent herein was working as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) with the Building Department of Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'DDA') in the year 1998. He was responsible at that point of time to ensure that construction at Shankar Road area takes place as per the sanctioned building plans. The respondent was to inspect the sites at the time of recommending 'D' Forms for the buildings under the prevalent Building Bye -laws. During inspection of Plots No. 206, 208, 216 and 223 by the vigilance team of DDA, large scale unauthorized construction was found to be existing. It was found that the owners/builders had covered more than 400% FAR against the permissible limit of 180%, however the respondent in his capacity as Assistant Engineer(Civil) had recommended grant of 'D' Forms for the aforesaid buildings. On 07.12.2001, the respondent was charge sheeted and an Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his Inquiry Report on 10.01.2003 wherein it was held that the charges leveled against the respondent were not established. The Inquiry Report was considered by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., Engineer Member DDA, who did not concur with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and accordingly, forwarded the copy of the Inquiry Report along with a note recording reasons for disagreement to the respondent with liberty to make a submission within 15 days. Reply was submitted by the respondent on 08.01.2005. After considering the reply of the respondent, a penalty was imposed on the respondent of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of two years with cumulative effect with a condition that the respondent would earn increments during the period of penalty when due. An appeal was filed against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, but before the final order could be passed a writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court, which was then transferred to the Tribunal and which was allowed.

(3.) MR . Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently submitted that the petitioner has allegedly discriminated by the respondent, firstly; on the ground that one Mr. S.K. Leekha, who was identically placed as the respondent herein, has been exonerated, and secondly; the finding of the Disciplinary Authority is without any basis and there was no ground for the Disciplinary Authority to differ from the report of the Inquiry Officer who had categorically held that there was no evidence on record to indicate that the owner/builder had carried out any unauthorized construction before issuance of D -Form, nor any documents on record suggested that the unauthorized construction was in existence at the time of issuance of 'D' Form. It is also submitted that Junior Engineers, who were directly responsible for the construction being carried out in the area in question, were exonerated and merely because subsequently major punishments have been awarded to them cannot affect the stand of the respondent herein. An additional ground has also been raised that Regulation 26(1A) has not been complied with which entails that a copy of the Inquiry Report is to be supplied to the delinquent officer irrespective of the fact whether the inquiry has resulted in his favour or not and thereafter, in case the Disciplinary Authority differs at that stage also, a copy of the Inquiry Report has to be furnished to the delinquent officer.