Full Judgment Text
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12.11.2025
+ W.P.(C) 5026/2024 & CM APPL. 20547/2024
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arun Birbal, Adv.
versus
DEEPAK JAIN .....Respondent
Through: Mr.M. K. Bhardwaj and
Mr.Praveen Kaushik, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the
Order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the,
‘Tribunal’) in O.A.No.3656/2017, titled Deepak Jain, EE (Civil),
Group ‘A’ v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. , whereby the
learned Tribunal allowed the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein,
and set aside the Charge Memo dated 09.08.2017, issued against the
respondent.
2. The petitioner further challenges the Order dated 31.01.2023
passed by the learned Tribunal in R.A. No. 11/2022 in the aforesaid
O.A., by which the learned Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the
Review Application filed by the petitioner herein as being not
maintainable.
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 6
W.P.(C) 5026/2024
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:17.11.2025
18:31:25
3. The petitioner issued a Charge Memo dated 09.08.2017 to the
respondent, containing the following charges:
“ ARTICLE- 1.
That the said Sh. Deepak Jain, EE while
functioning as JE/SED-8, allowed the
execution of substandard quality of RCC work
for various RCC members as is evident from
the report of M/s National Council of Cement
and Building Material (NCCBM) engaged for
the purpose of distress assessment of these
flats.
ARTICLE-2.
That the said Sh. Deepak Jain, EE,
while functioning as JE/SED-8, failed to
ensure that adequate clear cover is provided
to reinforcing steel bars which resulted in
rusting and corrosion of steel and cracking of
concrete.
Sh. Deepak Jain, EE (the then JE/ SED-
8/DDA) by his above acts, exhibited grave
dereliction of duty, failed to maintain absolute
integrity and behaved in a manner
unbecoming of an employee of the Authority
thereby, violating sub-rule 1 (I) & 1 (III) of
Regulation - 4 of the DDA Conduct,
Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999.”
4. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent, while serving as
Junior Engineer/SED-8, allowed the execution of sub-standard quality
of RCC work for various RCC members, as was evident from the
report of the M/s National Council for Cement and Building Materials
(NCCBM), which had been engaged by the petitioner to conduct a
distress assessment of the flats that had been constructed by the
petitioner at Dwarka.
5. It is further alleged that the respondent had failed to ensure that
an adequate clear cover had been provided to reinforce steel bars,
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 6
W.P.(C) 5026/2024
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:17.11.2025
18:31:25
which resulted in rusting and corrosion of the steel and cracking of the
concrete.
6. The learned Tribunal was pleased to set aside the Charge Memo
on the ground of delay in issuance of the same. The learned Tribunal
finds that the work in question had taken place in the years 1994-97,
while the Charge Memo was issued only in the year 2017. The learned
Tribunal further observes that since the allegations pertain to the
quality of steel utilized and the method of reinforcement, one must
have access to the work to prove the guilt or innocence, and as the
same is not available now, this would prejudice the defence of the
respondent.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the same
project, Charge Memos were issued to other officers as well. These
Charge Memos were also challenged by the respective officers before
the learned Tribunal through various O.As., and the learned Tribunal
was pleased to dismiss the O.As. filed by the other officers, except the
O.A. filed by the respondent herein. He further submits that one of the
officers even challenged the said order before this Court, and this
Court, in its Judgment dated 29.01.2021, passed in W.P. (C)
799/2021, titled Vijay Kumar Saluja v. Delhi Development Authority
and Anr. , rejected the plea of delay in issuance of the Charge Memo,
by observing as under:
“4. A perusal of the paper book reveals that
the petitioner has, as of now, retired as
Executive Engineer from DDA. The allegation
against the petitioner in the charge memo
issued in 2016 is that he had shown lack of
care and supervision during construction of
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 6
W.P.(C) 5026/2024
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:17.11.2025
18:31:25
SFS houses by DDA between 1998 and 2001
and as a result, the said structures had shown
structural stress.
5. We are in agreement with the view
expressed by the CAT that the delay is a
question of fact to be decided on the facts of
each case.
6. In the present matter, CAT was satisfied
with DDA’s explanation that the Charge
Memo was delayed as the flats had remained
vacant for a long time awaiting water and
electricity connections and as soon as the flats
were allotted, the allottees complained about
major structural defects. Thereafter, the
defects were removed and it was decided that
the persons who were responsible shall be
identified.
7. It was only after the preliminary inquiry
was completed that the disciplinary authority
had issued the Charge Memo to the petitioner.
Consequently, delay in the present case, if any,
at this threshold stage of the inquiry, does not
absolve the petitioner of the charge of lack of
supervision and care.
8. In any event, houses are not meant to
last for a short period of fifteen to twenty
years. The stairs, roofs and balconies of the
houses, which had to be extensively
dismantled/recast/repaired/rectified in the
present case, were meant to last for a very
long period, if not a life-time.”
8. He submits that, unfortunately, these orders could not be
brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal when the O.A. was heard
and decided on 05.03.2021. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this
Court, the Review Application was filed by the petitioner before the
learned Tribunal, however, the same was rejected without considering
the effect of these orders.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent places
Signature Not Verified
Page 4 of 6
W.P.(C) 5026/2024
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:17.11.2025
18:31:25
reliance on a host of Judgments, including the Judgment of Supreme
Court in State of A. P. v. N. Radhakishan , (1998) 4 SCC 154, and
the Judgment of this Court in P. K. Mathur v. Union of India & Anr. ,
2008:DHC:1851-DB, to contend that the delay in issuing the Charge
Sheet is fatal to the disciplinary proceedings as it causes prejudice to
the respondent in presenting his defence.
10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
11. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has clearly erred in not
noticing that similar Charge Memos issued against other officers have
been upheld and, in fact, a challenge to the same has been rejected by
this Court in Vijay Kumar Saluja (supra). The observations of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court clearly explain why the delay could not
have been the sole ground for setting aside the Charge Memos.
12. The allegation in the Charge Memo issued against the
respondent is that due to his conduct in not properly supervising the
construction of the flats that had been got constructed by the petitioner
in the Dwarka project, the said flats had developed cracks within only
a few years of their occupation. These defects came to light only on
the occupation of the flats, and the fact that they had been constructed
in a poor manner could be certified only on receipt of the report from
the NCCBM.
13. This Court, taking note of these facts, in Vijay Kumar Saluja
(supra) has rejected the plea of delay in the issuance of the Charge
Memo. We, being bound by the same and finding no reason to differ
with the same, set aside the Impugned Order passed by the learned
Signature Not Verified
Page 5 of 6
W.P.(C) 5026/2024
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:17.11.2025
18:31:25
Tribunal.
14. However, taking into account the fact that the respondent has
since superannuated and the allegations pertain to the years 1994-97,
the petitioner must expedite the conduct of the disciplinary
proceedings and make an endeavour to conclude the same within a
period of six months from today. Needless to state, the respondent
shall fully cooperate in such endeavour of the petitioner.
15. It is further clarified that any observation made in our present
Order is only for deciding the present Writ Petition and shall not, in
any manner, prejudice the defence of the respondent, including on the
issue of delay in issuance of the Charge Memo and its effect on his
defence.
16. The petition along with the pending application is allowed in
the above terms.
17. There shall be no orders as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
NOVEMBER 12, 2025/sg/hs
Signature Not Verified
Page 6 of 6
W.P.(C) 5026/2024
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:17.11.2025
18:31:25