JUGVEER Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as a Junior Engineer (Civil) in MCD. He is aggrieved by an order passed by the Vigilance Department on 21.4.2006. This order came to be passed under Regulation 16 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Services (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1959. By this order, the Commissioner, MCD has set aside the orders dated 2.9.2005 and 13.2.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/C.L. Zone. As a result of this, the earlier office order dated 1.8.2003 working out the periods for which the penalties imposed on the petitioner were to run one after the other, i.e., consecutively, was revived. The question before this court is whether this revival of the order of 1.8.2003 whereby penalties imposed on the petitioner were to run consecutively amounts to an enhancement of the punishment when compared to the orders of

(2.) 9.2005 and 13.2.2006 which had directed the punishments to run concurrently, but were now set aside. 2. The petitioner was recruited by the respondent as a Junior Engineer (Civil) in 1988. He has so far served the respondent for about 18 years or so. At one point during this period he happened to be posted for one year and eight months in the City Zone of the MCD. During this tenure, as many as 15 charge sheets are said to have been served upon the petitioner. Ultimately, as many as 14 different orders came to be passed against the petitioner. By these orders, which were passed from 30.11.1992 to 22.5.2001, separate penalties, inter alia, imposing stoppage of one, two or three increments, with or without future effect, as well as reduction in the present time -scale, came to be imposed. Ultimately, on 1.8.2003, an office order was issued by the Executive Engineer - XVII, MCD, where the manner in which all these penalties would be given effect to was worked out. According to that order, these penalties were to be implemented one after the other i.e., consecutively. In doing so, the Executive Engineer found that these penalties imposed on the petitioner will run upto the date of his retirement, i.e., 30.4.2021. He also found that since the petitioner was retiring on 30.4.2021, therefore the last penalty, which had been imposed on the petitioner on 22.5.2001, could not be implemented. The following penalties have been imposed on the petitioner by the Competent Authority : - <IMG>JUDGEMENT_325_LAWS(DLH)8_2008.jpg</IMG> In the same order, the Executive Engineer also noted that;

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6914/2003 in this Court. He contended, inter alia, that in a similar case, several penalties imposed on another employee, Shri Suraj Prakesh Sagta, which were to run consecutively, were later on directed by the Deputy Commissioner, City Zone to be implemented concurrently. In that matter, by an interim order, this court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case afresh. A direction was also issued to the respondents to obtain the opinion of the Govt. of India in this respect. According to the petitioner, pursuant to those directions by this Court, on 2.9.2005, the Deputy Commissioner/C.L. Zone directed that since there is no specific order directing any of the penalties to run separately, therefore, in this case, the penalties will run concurrently.