MEENA DAYAL Vs. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is being preferred for quashing of order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the disciplinary authority and order dated 13.09.2018 passed by the appellate authority whereby the order of penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for one year with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing the further increment of pay.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that a notice along with copy of order dated 08.12.2011 was issued from the court of District Judge (North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and received in the Law Department of the respondents on the same day which was further marked by the petitioner to the clerk for informing the panel lawyer about the court cases. On 03.01.2012, the concerned clerk stated that he visited the Chamber of panel lawyer to handover the copy of the order but nobody was found to receive the same. However, the petitioner informed the panel lawyer over telephone about the court's orders. Therefore, the petitioner did her best to ensure that panel lawyer should appear on the date fixed. However, the petitioner was served with a memo dated 13.09.2012 stating therein that the petitioner, while working as Junior Law Officer (JLO) on ad-hoc basis in the year 2011-12 in DUSIB failed to follow up the court cases assigned to her with department as well as panel lawyers. The petitioner filed reply to the same on 26.11.2012 and denied the allegations made against her. But without considering the reply of the petitioner appointed inquiring officer/presenting officer vide order dated 17.12.2012. Subsequently, on 09.06.2014, another inquiry officer was appointed to look into the charges. The said inquiry officer gave his inquiry report dated 17.01.2018 by holding that charge proved against the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Law Officer, who was similarly chargesheeted by the respondents in the same transaction, however, the inquiry officer had hold that no charges were proved against the Law Officer. Whereas another inquiry officer, in the case of the petitioner has held that the charges are proved. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty and has been confirmed by the appellate authority.