VED PRAKASH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, applicant Ved Prakash (since dead) prayed for the following relief:

(2.) BRIEF facts of the applicant's case run thus: Applicant was issued Memo dated 25.4.2007 (Annexure A/4) by respondent no. 2 proposing to hold an enquiry against him under Regulation 25 of the DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999, on the charge that while working as Superintendent in SFS (Housing) during the year 1999 -2000, he was responsible for recommending the case for issuance of possession letter and subsequent execution of conveyance deed in respect of Flat No. 86 -S, Sector 8, Jasola, allotted in the name of Shri K.S. Ramaswami on the basis of forged documents/SPA, and exhibited lack of absolute devotion to duty and lack of absolute integrity and thereby contravened Regulation 41(i) and (ii) of DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999. The applicant, vide his reply dated 21.5.2007 (Annexure A/5), denied the charge levelled against him. Thereafter, the disciplinary enquiry was initiated, and inquiry officer was appointed, vide order dated 22.6.2007. On 19.5.2008, vide Annexure A/6, the applicant submitted his written brief to the inquiry officer. In the written brief, the applicant stated that the allottee had appended his initial signature in the registration form in the year 1982. The signature of the allottee that was alleged as not tallying with his initial signature was made in the year 1999, i.e., after an interval of almost 18 years. Due to this long interval, the possibility of variation in the style and manner of the signatures could not be ruled out. The inquiry officer, vide its report dated 29.5.2008 (Annexure A/7), held that the charge against the applicant was not proved. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the report of the inquiry officer and issued a disagreement note dated 2.4.2009 (Annexure A/9) without assigning reason for disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer. On 15.4.2009, the applicant submitted his representation (Annexure A/10), wherein he took various grounds questioning the disagreement note. The disciplinary authority, vide order dated 15.6.2009 (Annexure A/1) imposed on applicant the penalty of 10% cut in pension for two years. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed appeal dated 16.7.2009 (Annexure A/11) against the order of penalty. The appeal was rejected by the appellate authority, vide its order dated 20.10.2009 (Annexure A/2). The applicant's revision petition dated 6.8.2010 (Annexure A/12) was also rejected by the Lt. Governor of Delhi, vide order dated 23.5.2012 (Annexure A/3). In paragraph 4(v) of the O.A., the applicant has stated about another disciplinary enquiry initiated pursuant to the charge memo dated 6.2.2004 containing similar charge, in which though the disciplinary authority had imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for two years without cumulative effect and the appeal was rejected by the appellate authority, yet the Lt. Governor, on revision petition, exonerated the applicant of the charge, after holding that the applicant was not responsible for the lapses. In paragraph 4 (xiii) of the O.A., the applicant has stated about another disciplinary proceeding initiated on the basis of the memo of charge dated 29.7.2003, wherein the disciplinary authority imposed penalty on the applicant, and the appellate authority rejected his appeal, but the Lt. Governor of Delhi, on revision petition, exonerated the applicant of the charge. It is also stated by the applicant that as per office orders dated 29.5.1990 and 14.6.1990 issued by the Commissioner (Housing), D.D.A., the liability to verify the genuineness of the signature and identity of the allottee lies with the Assistant Director and Deputy Director and therefore, he being the Superintendent (Housing) should not have been held responsible and punished.

(3.) IN the rejoinder reply, the applicant has refuted the statements made by the respondents in their counter reply.