SURENDRA BAHADUR SINGH Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MA 383/2012: MA 383/2012 has been filed for preponement of the date of hearing of the OA. It is stated that the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant initiated in 1991 have still been shown as continuing, depriving the applicant of even one promotion since then. Further, no counter reply in the OA has been filed in spite of three opportunities given, which is causing prejudice to the applicant. Notices had been issued in the MA on 13.2.2012. However, no reply to the MA has been filed. The MA is accordingly allowed. OA 3628/2011: The OA had been filed on 03.10.2011 and notices had been issued on 04.10.2011. However, despite the respondents having been granted sufficient opportunities (including a last opportunity) by this Tribunal to file reply vide orders dated 5.12.2011, 5.1.2012 and 31.01.2012 the reply has not been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is not in the interest of the applicant that the OA be allowed to be delayed further as it relates to a charge memo that is pending since 1991 as a result of which the applicant has been deprived of promotion while his juniors are stated to have been promoted. Accordingly we have decided to hear the OA on the basis of the available pleadings and submissions to be made, as agreed by both the counsel.

(2.) In this OA, the applicant has challenged the action of the respondents in not promoting him to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on the ground of a Charge Memo. issued to him on 10.12.1991, that has been kept pending without any action for the last 16 years.

(3.) The brief facts of the case, as set out in the OA, are that the applicant had joined the respondents (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the year 1979. He became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), after rendering of five years of regular service as JE (Civil), in the year 1984. In December, 1991, a charge memorandum was issued to the applicant stating that he had during 1988 -89 failed to detect/stop/remove some unauthorized construction in the area under his jurisdiction. The applicant submitted his reply to the charge memo in January, 1992 denying the charges and contending that the same had been issued on incorrect facts. It is stated that in the year 1994, juniors of the applicant [one junior appears at Sl. No.44 of the seniority list of JE (Civil)] were promoted to the post of AE (Civil) but the case of the applicant is stated to have not been considered. It is stated that the applicant was suspended in 1994. It is further submitted that the in the departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant, the inquiry officer vide his note dated 7.12.1995 submitted a note to the disciplinary authority stating that due to the original BWR not being made available, the inquiry proceedings were being adversely affected and the charge framed against the applicant may not materialize. The applicants suspension is stated to have been revoked in the year 1995. He was, however, again placed under suspension vide Office Order dated 2.03.2001 due to pendency of the Court case in RC 45(A)/2000 against him. The said suspension was revoked w.e.f. 31.01.2007 vide Office Order dated 26.02.2007. It is stated that by the applicant that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case which was registered in 2000 and till date charges have not been framed against him by the competent criminal Court in the said case. The applicant also states that he has made several representations for promotion to the post of AE (Civil) since 1995 till 2010 (the last representation is stated to have been made on 2nd September, 2010), but that despite this no action has been taken for his promotion. It is stated that the Vigilance Department has in its report dated 20.06.2010 stated that the RDA/Police Case No.1/24/91(C/S issued) in Police case No.1443../Vig./2000 is still pending against the applicant as on 29.06.2010. Thereafter, the applicant filed OA No.3481/2011 which was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh OA with better particulars. Hence, the present OA, seeking the following relief: to quash and set aside the impugned Charge Memo. No.1/24/91 dated 10.12.1991 and direct the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of AE (Civil), EE and SE (Civil) from the date of his junior with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.