Central Administrative Tribunal - DelhiSh. Satyabir Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 26 April, 2010Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench

OA No.2513/2008

New Delhi, this the 26th day of April, 2010

Honble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J)
Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 

Sh. Satyabir Singh
S/o Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o House No.75, Sector-3, 
Pocket 1 & 2, Dwarka, 
New Delhi 110 078.				           	. Applicant.

(By Advocate : Sh. Ajesh Luthra)

Versus

1.	Delhi Development Authority
	Through its Vice Chairman,
	Vikas Sadan (B-Block, Ist Floor),
	Near I.N.A.,
	New Delhi 110 023.

2.	Finance Member
	Delhi Development Authority,
	Vikas Sadan (B-Block, Ist Floor),
	Near I.N.A.,
	New Delhi 110 023.

3.	Commissioner (Personnel),
	Delhi Development Authority,
	Vikas Sadan (B-Block, Ground Floor),
	Near I.N.A., 
New Delhi 110 023.				.. Respondents.

(By Advocate : Sh. Rajinder Khatter)


: O R D E R :

Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :By this OA, the Applicant is challenging his compulsory retirement and also reduction of pension to the tune of 1/3rd of his pension as penalty imposed on him for a disciplinary case taken up by the Respondents against him.  We may briefly indicate the background of the case culminating to the imposition of the above penalty against the Applicant. The Applicant has faced number of disciplinary cases during his service period.  A minor penalty charge sheet was issued against the Applicant vide charge memo dated 12.03.1998 on the ground that while working as UDC in Housing Department of the DDA from 1991 to 1995, he committed certain lapses and irregularities.  It is alleged that Shri S. C. Shakhuja, allottee of the Flat in Sector-C, Pocket 6 & 7, Vasant Kunj, was issued with a Demand-Cum-Allocation letter dated 26.11.1990-20.11.1990 wherein the allottee was required to pay the demanded amount in four half yearly instalments which he deposited in time but his name was not included in the draw of allotment of specific flat.  Subsequently, Flat No.3153/B-4 Vasant Kunj-II was allotted to him in the draw held on 8.5.1995, whereas the said Flat was already allotted to one Shri S. S. Jogie in the draw held on 30.3.1993.  Thus, this was a case of double allotment for the same flat by the Housing Department and the two case files for these allotments were dealt by the Applicant as UDC which reflected negligence on his part.  A show cause memo was issued to him on 18.2.1997 on the said controversies.  However, the Applicant was placed under suspension by the DDA vide order dated 2.5.1997 (Annexure-A1).  The Applicant submitted his reply to the charge sheet vide his letter dated 15.5.1998 and accepted the misconduct as clerical mistake.  The Disciplinary Authority having considered the facts of the case and the Applicants reply imposed the penalty of stoppage of next increment when due for two years without cumulative effect vide his order dated 18.04.2000.  There is another disciplinary case against the Applicant where major penalty proceeding under Regulation 25 of DDA Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1999 were initiated against him vide Memo dated 1.12/9.12.2005 on the charges that while working as UDC and dealing clerk during the period from 1991 onwards committed gross misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and during the search conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 10.11.2000 in RC-DAI-2000-a-0065, it was found that he was in unauthorized possession of (i) rubber seals of Director (H) DDA and Commissioner (H) DD with intent to practice deception (ii) office copies of letters from allottees (Sh. Rakesh Kumar and Mrs. Manju Ahluwalia) addressed to the Asstt. Director, SFS, DDA bearing the acknowledgement seals of DDA. Shri S. C. Garella, Chief Engineer (Retired) was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the Applicant vide order dated 20.03.2006 and submitted his report dated 7.5.2007, wherein he held the charges against the Applicant as partly proved.  The Disciplinary Authority after considering the Enquiry Report and facts on record imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement with further stipulation that the Applicant would get 2/3rd of pension and full gratuity vide his order dated 17.10.2007 (Annexure-A4).  On appeal against the said order, it was rejected by the Appellate Authority.  Consequently, the Applicant is before us in the present OA assailing the orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities and also the charge memo with the following prayers:-(a)	Quash the suspension order dated 2.5.97 (Annexure A-1) not only because having been issued in contemplation of a minor penalty proceeding but also because it has been continued even after the imposition of minor penalty, with all consequential benefits of balance pay & allowances in either case, i.e., imposition of suspension for minor penalty proceeding and also because penalty imposed was only minor penalty in pursuance of minor penalty proceeding.(b)	Quash the suspension order dated 29.12.2000 (Annexure A-2) with all consequential benefits of service restored to the applicant.(c)	quash the charge sheet dated 1.12./19.12.2005 (Annexure A-3), also quash the penalty order dated 17.10.2007 (Annexure A-4) and appellate authoritys order dated 9.5.08 (Annexure A-5) with all consequential benefits of service restored to the applicant.(d)	Directions be passed to the respondents to produce all the disciplinary proceedings records related to the case before this Honble Tribunal.2.	Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the Applicant contended that this was a case of no evidence; the chargesheet was based on assumption and presumption including hearsay conversation between a person who was no more, with the Applicant, the charges were framed after delay of 10 years of the alleged telecommunication; the findings of the Inquiry Officer was one sided, arbitrary; the Disciplinary Authority proceeded against  the Applicant with a closed mind and had already prejudged the guilt; the suspension order dated 2.5.1997 continued on 29.12.2009 was unjustified  as he was not reinstated after the minor penalty was imposed on him vide order dated 18.04.2000; the penalty  of compulsory retirement imposed on him was disproportionate  to the proved misconduct; further there was no disagreement note from the Disciplinary Authority holding the charges as proved whereas the IO held that same as partly proved, and the IO did not give the Applicant opportunity to cross examine the witness and therefore the principle of natural justice was violated.  Shri Luthra placed his  reliance on the judgment of Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Surendra Chandra Das Versus State of West Bengal and Others [1981 (3) SLR 737 (P&H)] to state that the charge sheet should not be issued in a biased and closed mind and in case the charge sheet from  its language appears to have prejudged the conclusion, such disciplinary proceeding would be bad in the eyes of law.3.	Per contra, Shri Rajender Khatter, learned counsel representing  the Respondents very strongly opposed the contentions raised  by Shri Ajesh Luthra.   Shri Khatter raised the preliminary objection to state that the Tribunal should not take up the role of appellate authority in disciplinary case and he relied on the judgments of Honble  Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Versus Upender Singh [ 1994 (2) SCC 77]; Union of India & Others Versus S.L. Abbas [AIR 1993 SC 444] Bank of India Versus Jagjit  Singh Mehta  [AIR 1992 SC 519]; and Union of India Versus Naga Maleswara Rao [AIR 1998 SC 111].  He submitted that the Tribunal had only limited power to interfere in departmental proceedings as held by the Honble Apex Court in Paramanand Versus State of Haryana and Others [1989 (2) SCC 177).  It is stated that after the Applicants house was raided by CBI where certain items and documents were found, the CBI advised the Respondent  DDA to initiate major penalty disciplinary proceeding against the Applicant.  He further submitted that Inquiry revealed the evidence by which the IO found certain aspects of the charge as proved.  For such part of the proved misconduct, Shri Khatter submitted, there was no need of any disagreement note to be issued by the Disciplinary Authority.  It was also contended that  the charge against the Applicant reflected the alleged misconduct and there was no prejudging in the charge.  Further, Shri Khatter argued that the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority followed the procedure meticulously and the punishment imposed on the Applicant is proportionate to the proved misconduct.4.	During the hearing, Shri Khatter informed us that the Applicant met him and attempted pecuniary influence on him to favour his case in the Tribunal.  Shri Khattar not only declined the said offer and conveyed his displeasure to the Applicant but also informed the matter to the Applicants counsel and to the Tribunal.  Shri Ajesh Luthra, counsel for the Applicant submitted that coming to know of the said influence exerted on Shri Khatter, he condemned the Applicants attempt and expressed his dissatisfaction.  As the Applicant was present in the court, we put him the question to know the truth of the incident.  While accepting the allegation silently by nodding his head, he apologized to Shri Khatter for his misdemeanor and  pleaded that he had taken some medicines and as such he was not in a position to speak more in the incident.  We put the questions to the counsel for both parties  to know about their view for further action on Shri Khatters Statement against the Applicant.  Shri Luthra suggested Shri Khatter to pardon the Applicant, which he did in the court.  Following the proverbial saying  Repentance is the best atonement and forgiveness is the noblest revenge, we closed the matter at that stage with a reprimand  to the Applicant.  However, we make it clear at this stage that the above said alleged misconduct on the part of the Applicant though has reflected his guilty mind, we are not taking into account the matter for adjudicating the issues involved in this OA.5.	Having heard the rival contentions, we also perused the pleadings and relied on judgments as well.  We have given our careful consideration to the issues and contentions advanced by the parties.6.	We would examine the statement of imputations and inquiry findings and the orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities.7.	We take extract of the statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the charge framed against the Applicant which reads as follows :-That Shri Satybir Singh, while working as public servant in the capacity of UDC, Dealing Clerk, DDA, was found in possession of one rubber seal in Hindi of Director (Housing), DDA and one rubber seal in English of Director (Housing) DDA and one round rubber seal in Hindi of Commissioner (Housing), DDA with him which he actually was not authorized to keep.  Further the seals which Shri Satybir Singh kept with him were fake seals which was meant to practice deception or to mislead the allottees.That Shri Satybir Singh, while working as public servant in the capacity of UDC, Dealing Clerk, DDA during the year 2000 kept the office copies of letter No.5097 dated 7.5.99 from Sh. Rakesh Kumar and letter No.7282 dated 18.9.2000 from Mrs. Manju Ahluwalia addressed to Asstt. Director, SFS DDA bearing acknowledgement seals of DDA.  Besides these he had also kept one photocopy of receipt No.3237 dated 11.8.82 issued by DDA in favour of Mrs. Manju Ahluwalia towards receipt of Rs.15,000/- and one copy of affidavit of Mrs. Manju Ahluwalia.  As Mrs. Manju Ahluwalia does not know Shri Satybir Singh, the office copies of documents submitted by her to Asstt. Director, SFS, DDA, should have not been in his possession.That Sh. Satybir Singh while working as a public servant in the capacity  of UDC, Dealing  Clerk, DDA during the year 2000 posed himself as a property dealer before one allottee of DDA namely, Shri Jaswinder Singh Sangla and informed that his allotment  has been cancelled on account of non payment of installments and he will be able to reallocate the flat if Shri Jaswinder Singh Sangla sell the said flat to him.  Shri Satybir Singh, has also obtained a receipt and sale & purchase letter on behalf of his wife Smt. Kamlesh towards payment of Rs.30,000/-By his above act Sh. Satybir Singh, UDC (U/S) exhibited lack of absolute devotion to duty, lack of absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming  of a Government  Servant there by contravened Rule 4 (i), (ii) and (iii) of DDA Conduct Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations 1999 as made applicable to the employees of the Authority.8.	It is seen from the only Article of charge and the imputation  thereon that there are 4 parts of the said charge. The IO having considered  the available evidence, has held  2 parts as proved and 2 parts as not proved and ultimately concluded that the charge is partly proved.  The findings and conclusions of IOs report dated 7.5.2007 read as follows :-7.0		FINDINGS
7.1	The charge framed against the C.O. that he was unauthorisedly in possession of (i) the rubber seals of Director (Housing) and Commissioner (Housing) and (ii) Letters from Sh. Rakesh Kumar and also from Mrs. Manju Ahluwalia addressed to the Assistant Director, SFS, DDA is proved.7.1.1The charge framed against the C.O. that he was  in unauthorized possession of the above articles and documents with intent to practice deception is not proved.7.2	The charge framed against the C.O. that he posed  himself as a property dealer during the course  of buying the registration papers of a flat at Vasant Kunj is proved.7.2.1 The charge framed  against the C.O. that he engaged in liaison work during the course of above transaction is not proved.8.0	CONCLUSIONS.Partly proved, as detailed out in the Findings in Para 7.0 above.9.	The Disciplinary Authority followed the procedure under Regulation 25 of DDA Conduct, Disciplinary & Appeal Regulations, 1999, examined the Applicants alleged misconduct that  during the search conducted by CBI on 10.11.2000 & during the course of investigation in RC-DAI-2000-A-0065 he was found unauthorisedly in possession of (i) the rubber seals of Director (Housing), DDA and Commr. (H), DDA with intent to practice deception, (ii) office copies of the letters from allottees Sh. Rakesh Kumar and Mrs. Manju Ahluwalia  addressed to the A.D. SFS DDA bearing  the acknowledgment seals of the DDA.  He was also found engaged  and posed himself as a property dealer during the course of buying the registration papers of property from Sh. Jaswant Singh Sangla, allottee of Flat No.6119, 2nd floor, C-6 & 7 Vasant Kung, New Delhi.  The I.O. in his report dated 07.05.2007 has held the charges against Applicant as proved.  He was given an opportunity of making the representation against the IOs findings vide Notice dated 26.06.2007 which he replied vide his letter dated 24.08.2007.10.	During the CBI raid  3 items viz seals and letters, as alleged in the charge were recovered from the Applicants residence which fact was reflected in the seizure memo (Ex S-2) and the same was confirmed by Prosecution Witnesses (SWI and SW2).  From the statements given by the witnesses, it emerged that the said seals could be misused to cheat public.  However, the Applicant, during the inquiry, stated that no seals and letters were recovered.   But the seizure memo corroborated by those who were independent witnesses to the seizure appearing in the inquiry, were properly analysed by the Inquiry Officer and arrived at the conclusion that the Applicant was in possession of letters from Shri Rakesh Kumar and Mrs. Manju Ahluwalia.  Evidence of Jaswant Singh Sangla revealed that the Applicant  posing property dealer had financial  transactions.  Adequate evidence was received by the Inquiry Officer on the part of the alleged misconduct that the Applicant was working a property dealer.  In view of the evidence received by the Inquiry Officer he came to the conclusion that two out of 4 parts of the only charge were held as proved.  We noted that the counsel for the Applicant who advanced one of the contentions that it was a case of no evidence, could not convince us.11.	In a disciplinary case like this, the standard of proof is not expected to be that of Criminal Proceeding.  As long as the preponderance of probability on the basis of some evidence is available in the disciplinary case, we cannot interfere and have to adopt judicial restraint as held by the Honble Apex Court in the case of N. Rajarathinam Versus State of Tamil Nadu and Another [1997-1-SLJ-10- SC]. In the present OA, the Inquiry Officer has found adequate evidence against the Applicant and we find that the Disciplinary Authority has rightly taken into account the part of charges held as partly and fully proved to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement and the Applicant would get 2/3rd of pension and full gratuity.12.	With regard to the applicability of doctrine of proportionality, we have gone through the case and found from the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer and fully relied on the same decision by the Disciplinary Authority that the penalty imposed commensurates with the proved charges.  There  are catena of judgments of Honble Apex Court where the ratio has been laid that the scope of the judicial interference is very limited and restricted to exception cases and facts and circumstances of the cases.  We place our reliance on one of the judgements in Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Etawah & Others Versus Hari Lal and Another [JT 2003 (2) SC 27] to state that this is not an exceptional case where our intervention on the quantum of punishment is called for.13.	From the above proportionality angle, we note that the Disciplinary Authority, having gone  through the Applicants reply , IO Report observed that since two parts out of four of the charge had been proved,  vide his order dated 17.10.2007 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement and the Applicant would get 2/3rd of pension and full gratuity.  It is also noted that the Applicant preferred an appeal dated 08.11.2007 against the said order of 17.10.2007 which was considered by the Appellate Authority and ultimately rejected the same.  We are of the opinion that the proportionality angle has been  adequately addressed in the case.14.	Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account our analysis and conclusions on the issues involved the case, we are of the considered finding that the Applicant has not been able to establish his case.  In the result, finding no merits, the Original Application is dismissed leaving the respective parties to  bear their costs.(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda )			( Shanker Raju )
    Member (A)                                               Member (J)
  

/rk/