MURLI SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the order of removal passed by the Vice Chairman of the D.D.A. removing the petitioner from service under Regulation 19 of D.D.A. (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1961.

(2.) Before I deal with the point that has arisen for consideration, the facts that are necessary can be noticed very briefly. The petitioner was enrolled as a clerk in Army Ordinance at AOC Centre, Sikandrabad, AP-15 on or about 6th Jan., 1964. He was transferred to 17 Vehicle Battalion Delhi Cantt.-10 on or about 25th September, 1965. On 15.7.1967 he was appointed as Store Clerk and posted at Chakrotra Dehradun. Sometime later, he was posted in 26 Infantory Division Ordinance, Field Dark Nagrota, Jammu. He was discharged from army service on 28.2.1971. He had been having good record of service in Army. On 22.2.1972 the petitioner was offered a temporary post of Patwari in D.D.A. By order dated 13.4.1978 the petitioner and other employees similarly situated were declared as quasi permanent. On 7.8.1980 the petitioner along with others was appointed officiator Kannongo. On 21.4.1986. the petitioner along with other employees similarly situated appointed to officiate as Naib Tehsildar. On 5.8.1989 the impugned order was passed. On 5.10.1989 the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority. On 13.5.1990 the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. On 23.7.1990 the writ petition was presented in this Court.

(3.) That the case of the petitioner is that Regulation 19 is void in law and it is ultra- vires and it infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioner and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The second point raised by the petitioner is that no notice was given before the order was passed and the finding is not supported by any evidence on record and, therefore, the order is vitiated.