Full Judgment Text
#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 05.07.2023
Judgment delivered on: 04.08.2023
+ W.P.(C) 4802/2023 & CM APPL. 18515/2023
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel
with Mr. Gaganmeet Singh Sachdeva
and Mr. Nihal Singh, Advocates and
Mr. Akshay Kumar, Asstt. Director
(P) (I), Mr. Rajvir, M.T.S., CL/
Branch, DDA.
Versus
SANJAY KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
with respondent in-person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
1. The challenge by way of this writ petition is to an order dated October
27, 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred
to as „Tribunal‟) in O.A.No. 2464/2021, whereby the Tribunal quashed the
articles of charge, the report of Inquiry Officer, the order of the Disciplinary
Authority and Appellate Authority apropos penalty imposed on the
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 1 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
respondent in following terms:-
“17. The applicant in our view has been subjected to a very
harsh penalty in the matter without any substantive evidence.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the impugned orders dated
24.08.2020 and 04.10.2021 i.e. the order of the disciplinary
authority and the appellate authority respectively. Accordingly,
these orders are quashed and set aside. Along with them, is set
aside the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 27.01.2017 and the
memorandum dated 24.04.2019 vide which the Articles of
Charges were issued.
18. Needless to say that pursuant to these directions, the
applicant shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits,
including arrears of any financial benefits which may accrue to
him as a consequence of this order and he will be restored to his
original position as a Senior Law Officer with effect from the
date the penalty was imposed, meaning thereby that he
continues to hold this position without interruption. The said
directions shall be complied with within a period of six weeks'
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
2. In brief, as per the case of the petitioner/Delhi Development Authority
(hereinafter referred to as „DDA‟), a piece of land was allotted to Badarpur
Traders Union (BTU) by Delhi Administration for a period of one year from
June 23, 1967 to June 22, 1968. The land was placed at the disposal of DDA
vide notification dated January 03, 1968 under Section 21 of the Delhi
Development Authority Act, 1957. A show-cause notice dated June 24,
1971 was served upon BTU by the Estate Officer, DDA and subsequently
DDA demolished and removed the encroachments from the said land on
August 02, 2001.
Appeal preferred by BTU before learned ADJ was allowed vide order
dated September 22, 2001 thereby setting aside the order passed by the
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 2 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
Estate Officer. A writ petition bearing No.7312/2005 was preferred by DDA
before the High Court challenging the order passed by learned ADJ, wherein
in the proceedings conducted on July 19, 2018, BTU submitted before the
High Court that the writ petition had become infructuous, since DDA had
executed a lease in favour of BTU. However, stand was taken on behalf of
DDA that the lease deed which had been executed and registered, was not
approved by DDA and was void/contrary to the statute. Pursuant to the
same, High Court directed DDA to file a detailed affidavit explaining the
circumstances in which the lease deed had been executed, identifying the
official responsible for the same and the action which the Vice Chairman
(VC) proposed to take in this regard.
3. It is further the case of DDA that pursuant to the aforesaid directions,
a committee was constituted by Vice Chairman, DDA on August 08, 2018 to
examine the mater. Shri Sanjay Kumar/respondent herein, who was then a
Senior Law Officer (SLO) was issued a memo on September 05, 2018 vide
which it was communicated that the committee which had been constituted
had found some lapses, in not referring the file by the SLO to the CLA
(Chief Legal Advisor) and handling the same himself in the absence of CLA.
In the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent, the
statement of imputation of misconduct in support of Articles of Charge was
issued in following terms:-
"1. In compliance with the orders dated 19.07.2018 of Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) NO. 7312/2005 titled DDA Vs.
Badarpur Traders Union & Anr. VC, DDA constituted a
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 3 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
committee to examine, inter alia, the matter of whether the
Perpetual Lease Deed dated 15.12.2017 executed in favor of
Badarpur Traders Union suffered from any infirmities and also
whether there had been any lapses on the part of any officers of
DDA in this matter.
2. A note dated 13.10.2017 at page 181/N of file No.
F.16(106) 76/ MP/Pt.I/Vol. IV was recorded by the Sr. LO(LD)-II
observing that this was a triparty unique case wherein a lease
has to be executed in favor of Badarpur Traders Union and
further sub-lease in favor of the members of the Union. It was
also mentioned that this was the first type of lease deed/
sublease in the CL Branch and the Clauses of the lease have
been incorporated from the lease deed with Cooperative Society
Branch and CL Branch as the lease deed sub lease, in this case,
was unique in nature itself being the Badarpur Traders Union is
Union and likely to act as Society which has its own members to
whom the sub-leases are to be executed by the department
separately to the members with the recommendations of
Registrar/ Commissioner of Trade Union being triparty
execution of sub-lease deed i.e. BTU, the sub-lease members,
and DDA. In view of these facts, the SLO (LD)-II proposed final
vetting of the draft of the perpetual lease by Ld. CLA. Thereafter
the SLO(LD)-I availed the leave and the file was dealt with by
Shri Sanjay Kumar, S.L.O . (LD). He did not, however, show the
lease to CLA.
3. The Committee submitted its report, inter alia, mentioning
that the lease deed was not shown to CLA by the link SLO(LD},
who dealt with the case during the leave of SLO(LD)- II
4. Hence, by his above acts Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Law Officer
failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty, thereby
contravening the provisions of Regulation-4 (i) of DDA
Conduct, Disciplinary & Appeal Regulations, 1999."
4. In the inquiry proceedings, Inquiry Officer on the basis of
documentary and oral evidence adduced in the proceedings held that the
charge against the respondent was partly proved to the extent that the
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 4 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
amended draft of the perpetual lease deed was not referred to CLA for his
approval and it was left at the discretion of the Commercial Land Branch to
refer back the file to the Land Department with the remarks “if required any
alternative or deletion of the terms and conditions of the draft or any further
enquiry the file may be referred to law department.”
5. Vice Chairman, DDA/Disciplinary Authority vide order dated August
24, 2020 held that the file was dealt by the respondent during the leave
period of regular SLO and amended and vetted the draft perpetual lease deed
himself without taking approval from the Deputy CLA/CLA despite specific
noting by the previous SLO seeking CLA‟s approval on the draft of the
perpetual lease deed as it was a unique case. The submissions made by the
respondent that the file was required to be forwarded only through Deputy
CLA/HoD and the file could have been referred back by Commercial Land
Department, did not find favour. Penalty of reduction from the post of SLO
to the post of JLO in time-scale for three years fixing the pay-scale at the
level on which the pay was fixed on April 24, 2016 (i.e. the date before the
appellant was promoted to the post of SLO) was accordingly imposed upon
the respondent. It was further directed that on completion of penalty period
the respondent will regain his present post of SLO and pay will be fixed at
the level of pay-scale which the Charged Officer was getting on the date of
reduction of the post, meaning thereby postponing all increments which
respondent would have earned during the period of penalty, had he not been
demoted.
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 5 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
6. An appeal preferred by the respondent before the Hon‟ble Lieutenant
Governor (LG) was thereafter dismissed.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Disciplinary Authority and
Appellate Authority, the respondent preferred O.A.No.2464/2021, which has
been allowed by the Tribunal, as noticed above thereby setting aside the
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order passed
by the Tribunal and written submissions have also been filed on record.
Learned counsel for DDA submits that the respondent/Sanjay Kumar
did not show the file to CLA (Chief Legal Officer), DDA despite specific
noting from the regular SLO, (LD)-II that it was an unprecedented matter
involving a tripartite lease deed and, as such, final vetting of the draft of
perpetual lease deed should have been done by the CLA. Further, the
respondent without showing the file to CLA or Deputy CLA forwarded the
file to Commercial Land Department, DDA and marked the same to Deputy
Director, CL. It was further urged that there is nothing on record in support
of the defence of respondent having discussed the matter with the Deputy
CLA-III. As a consequence of deliberate misleading note of respondent,
there was no reason for the CL Department to refer it back to the Law
Department once approval of the Law Department had been granted.
It was pointed out that the Inquiry Officer had, in assessment of
evidence, noted that the respondent in his note dated October 18, 2017 stated
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 6 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
that a discussion was held with Deputy CLA-III, but he failed to confirm the
same in writing by getting his note endorsed/signed by the latter. Further,
the general practice for a junior officer is, to record a written note of oral
discussion held with senior officer, bearing the signature of such senior
officer and even if the junior official fails to record a written note at the time
of discussion, it is his duty to get a written confirmation from the senior
officer at the earliest in terms of regulation 4(4) and 4(5) of DDA Conduct,
Disciplinary and Appellate Regulations, 1999. It was vehemently urged that
even though Deputy CLA-III was not produced on behalf of the petitioner
during the inquiry proceedings for confirmation in case the file had been
forwarded by the respondent after discussion with her, as reflected in the
note of the respondent, but said obligation of an affirmative assertion lay on
the respondent by summoning the Deputy CLA-III.
It was contended that the petitioner had also initiated departmental
proceedings against Shri M.K. Sharma, (then Assistant Director, CL) and
Shri H.K. Sharma (then Assistant Section Officer, CL) which culminated in
the imposition of penalty against the said officers. Further, recordable
warning was issued to Mr. V.S. Yadav, then Director, CL. Besides above,
on account of the lapses in allotment of land to BTU, petitioner also referred
case of Mr. Khush Dalbir (then Deputy Director, CL) and Shri Subu R. (then
Commissioner, Land Disposal) for suitable administrative action to their
respective parent departments.
It was further submitted that lease deed dated December 15, 2017
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 7 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
executed in favour of BTU was determined after due approval from the
Hon‟ble LG and also a suit was filed before the High Court {CS (OS)
No.145/2020} seeking cancellation of lease deed and for taking over the
possession.
Reliance was further placed upon the principles laid down in Lucknow
Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh, Civil Appeal No.6142/2013 to
contend that the Tribunal should have remitted the matter back to the
Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority if the quantum of
punishment was found to be inappropriate. Reference was also made to Anil
Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General SSB , (Civil Writ Petition No.
2707/2022) and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India 1996 AIR 484.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the
findings of the Tribunal and submitted that the respondent, who was working
as SLO at the relevant time, had been made a scapegoat for the alleged
illegality committed by the officers of the Commercial Land Department. It
is pointed out that the CLA had also dealt with the file before the in-principle
decision of regularization of lease in favour of BTU was taken and only after
decision of regularization, the demanded amount had been paid by BTU. It
is urged that the respondent only as a link officer had dealt with the file for
formal vetting of lease deed since the regular SLO was on leave and carried
out the vetting of lease deed which was shown to the Deputy CLA-III and
after discussion, the file was returned to the CL department.
It is also pointed out that despite a query raised by the Principal
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 8 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
Commissioner, Land, the file was not sent back to the Law Department and
the lease deed was executed in favour of BTU. It is contended that for the
alleged illegality committed in regularization by CL department, the
respondent was made a scapegoat. It is vehemently urged that Deputy CLA-
III was not examined and no effort was made to prove if the note was
wrongly recorded by the respondent. It is emphasized that the respondent
had seen the file in the absence of SLO (LD)-II only as a link officer and
there was no reason for respondent to suspect any illegality, since the case
was considered by the senior most officer including the CLA and V.C.,
before taking an in-principle decision for regularizing the lease. The
emphasis of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the finding of the
Inquiry Officer on the aspect of non-examination of Deputy CLA-III is not
based on any evidence. It is pointed out that the crucial aspect of referring
the case to Deputy CLA-III that the Inquiry Officer has simply given the
finding as under:-
"....The charged officer though had stated that the issue
regarding the vetting of the draft perpetual lease was discussed
with Dy.CLA-III, however, the same has not been
concurred/having seen by Dy.CLA at any stage ".
In the aforesaid background, the interference by the Tribunal is stated
to be justified. Reliance is further placed upon State of Andhra Pradesh
Pradesh and Others v. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975) 2 SCC 557.
10. We have given considered thought to the contentions raised.
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 9 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
There is no dispute as to the proposition of law laid down in Anil
Kumar Upadhyay v. Director General SSB (supra) relied by the petitioner
to contend that the question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary
proceedings is primarily within domain of the Disciplinary Authority and the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
or of the Administrative Tribunal is limited, and is confined to the
applicability of one or other of the well known principles known as
Wednesbury Principle . It is also equally well settled in B.C. Chaturvedi v.
Union of India (supra) that the High Court/Tribunal while exercising the
power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion of
penalty and impose some other penalty. Further, if the punishment imposed
by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the
conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the
relief and direct the disciplinary/Appellate Authority to reconsider the
penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and
rare cases impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support
thereof.
The principles referred in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v.
Rajendra Singh (supra) are also not disputed and may be beneficially
referred:-
“19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and
summarised as follows.
19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 10 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is
essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.
19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of
disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum
of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this
function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent
authority.
19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases
where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of
the court.
19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as
shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed
against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of
action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or
the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order
of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should
be the penalty in such a case.
19. 5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19. 4
above, would be in those cases where · the co-delinquent is
awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even
when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-
delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be
on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee
concerned and the co delinquent are equally placed. However,
there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in
respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after
the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent
accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified
apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable. "
11. However, it is well settled that the High Court may interfere, where
the departmental authorities, have held the inquiry proceedings against the
charged officer inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of
the statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the authorities
have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by allowing
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 11 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
themselves to be influenced by some considerations extraneous to the
evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very
face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person
could ever have arrived at that conclusion.
Reliance in this regard may be placed upon State of Andhra Pradesh
and Others v. Chitra Venkata Rao (supra) as well as Amarendra Kumar
Pandey v. Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 881.
12. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. preferred by the respondent for the
reasons as recorded in paragraphs 11 to 19 of the impugned order and may
be reproduced for reference:
“11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also
gone through the voluminous documents on record. We -have
particularly studied the relevant file notings which, in fact,
throw clear light on, this case as also the reasons for holding
the applicant guilty of violating DDA regulations by not
showing the file to the CLA.
12. It is not disputed that the case of the lease/sub-lease of
Badarpur Traders Union was to be dealt with by the SLO(LD)-
II. It is also recorded on file that at the relevant point of time
when the file was under submission, the said SLO(LD)-II was on
leave and the present applicant, who was SLO(LD)-I found
himself in a situation wherein he was asked to deal with the file
and vet the lease/ sub-lease.
13. We find from the file notings that the Dy. CLA has given a
categorical direction to the applicant to explain the vetting done
page wise, para wise along with reasons and then discuss the
matter. Thereafter, it is recorded that SLO(LD)-II is on leave
and the matter has been discussed with Dy. CLA. It has not been
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 12 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
contested anywhere in this O.A. or any of the documents placed
on record that the matter was not discussed with the Dy. CLA,
as desired. Further, there is a detailed note in which the
applicant in his capacity as SLO(LD)-II has discussed the lease
deed and in that note too, it has been recorded on two occasions
that the matter has been discussed with the Dy. CLA and the
facts, as recorded, explained to her. It has further been recorded
that the Dy. · CLA has desired to return the lease file to the
Commercial Department and if it requires any alteration or
deletion or if there is any further query, the file may be referred
to the Law Department again.
14. The file notings clearly indicate that the current applicant,
in his capacity as SLO{LD)-II, has recorded all this at the
behest of Dy. CLA, after discussion with her.
15. Since the facts as recorded on file are not controverted, we
have no reason to doubt the same. The charge against the
applicant is singular that he did not show the file to the CLA.
However, during the course of hearing, it has been categorically
submitted before us that the channel of reporting and
submission of file of the applicant was Dy. CLA; and it has been
conclusively established that he did submit the file to the Dy.
CLA and subsequently also discussed the matter with her and
after this discussion did he send the file back to the Commercial
Department. Further, when the file was returned after vetting of
the lease deed to the Commercial Department, no one in the
Commercial Department also thought it appropriate to send the
file back and seek the concurrence/approval of the CLA, despite
the fact that a specific query had been put by one Principal
Commissioner to 'this effect. What happened to this query, is not
adequately revealed in the file, but what transpires is that at a
much belated stage, it was observed that the proposed matter
has been dealt with without approval of the CLA.
16. We do not know nor is it our remit to comment whether the
issue of the concerned lease deed or some lease deed was dealt
with in an appropriate manner, in accordance with the internal
regulations of DDA. However, the facts as argued before us and
as established by the documents on record, conclusively prove
that the applicant could not have been held responsible for any
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 13 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
act of omission or violation of regulation of rules, in case there
have been any. The applicant was only holding a temporary
charge of the task assigned and in our view, he submitted the file
as directed and as recorded in the file notings to the appropriate
channel of reporting/submission of file. In case there has been
any serious lapse in the entire matter, the record does not
indicate any guilt of the same on the part of the present
applicant.
17. The applicant, in our view, has been subjected to a very
harsh penalty in the matter without any substantive evidence.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the impugned orders dated
24.08.2020 and 04.10.2021 i.e. the order of the disciplinary
authority and the appellate authority respectively. Accordingly,
these orders are quashed and set aside. Along with them, is set
aside the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 27.01.2017 and the
memorandum dated 24.04.2019 vide which the Articles of
Charges were issued.
18. Needless to say that pursuant to these directions, the
applicant shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits,
including arrears of any financial benefits which may accrue to
him as a consequence of this order and he will be restored to his
original position as a Senior Law Officer with effect from the
date the penalty was imposed, meaning thereby that he
continues to hold this position without interruption. The said
directions shall be complied with within a period of six weeks'
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
19. The O.A. stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Associated M.A., if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
There shall be no orders as to costs.”
13. The background facts reveal that alleged illegality committed in
regularizing the lease in favour of BTU came to light in pending proceedings
before the High Court only when the writ petition preferred by DDA was
sought to be withdrawn. Consequently, DDA was compelled to investigate
and take action in view of the observations made by the High Court.
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 14 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
However, it is imperative to note that the in-principle decision of
regularization of lease had already been taken by the Commercial Land
Department prior to initiating proposal for formal vetting of „lease‟ as
reflected vide detailed note dated September 29, 2017 by DA/CL.
Perusal of note dated September 29, 2017 by DA/CL (Commercial
Land) reflects that in response to office letter dated June 14, 2017 for
regularization of 3.69 acres of land allotted to BTU, the demanded amount
had already been deposited by BTU as per their letter dated August 28, 2017
including the payment of ground rent. BTU vide letter dated September 28,
2017 is also stated to have submitted required documents along with
undertaking. Thereafter, it is further noted that land measuring 3.69
acres allotted to BTU has been regularized on June 14, 2017 with the
approval of the competent authority, which is already in possession of
BTU. The note further recorded “Now, as such, the land is already in the
possession of Badarpur Traders Union and request of the Badarpur Traders
Union is already on file for issue of lease deed paper, if agreed we may issue
lease deed paper, draft of which collected from the Corporative Society
Branch and CL Branch, because the lease deed in this case is separate in
nature itself being the Badarpur Traders Union case is likely to be society
which has its members to whom the sub-leases are to be executed separately
to the members with the recommendation of the registrar of trade unions
being triparty execution of sub-lease i.e. in between the Badarpur Traders
Union, the sub-lease/member and DDA for stamping purpose.”
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 15 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
The file was marked by DA/CL to AD(CL) who advised to obtain the
valuable inputs of SLO(LD) with regards to T&C of lease deed as it is a
unique case and was thereafter returned by JLO(LD) after discussions with
SLO(LD) on October 10, 2017 to DD(CL).
14. The file was again forwarded by CL department along with perpetual
lease deed placed on correspondence, with proposal to send to CLA for
vetting vide note dated October 11, 2017 and was marked to SLO(LD). The
matter was examined by SLO(LD) on October 13, 2017 and marked to
Deputy CLA, who further recorded vide note dated October 16, 2017 (which
is wrongly mentioned as August 16, 2017) for explaining the vetting done by
SLO(LD)-II with reasons and for discussing the matter.
However, since SLO(LD)-II was on leave, the file was discussed by
the Link Officer SLO(LD) i.e. the respondent in terms of note dated
October 18, 2017 which is crucial and is reproduced for reference as it
led to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent:
“The matter discussed with the Deputy CLA-III and explain
the queries as raised on pre page. The matter also discussed
with the SLO (LM) who looks after the cases of Badarpur
Traders Union pending in the High Court. Commercial Land
Branch, DDA has regularized 3.69 Acres of land to the
Badarpur Traders Union and the demanded amount has already
been deposited by the Badarpur Traders Union including the
payment of ground rents. After finalize all the codal formalities,
the Commercial Land Branch has drafted the perpetual lease
deed placed opposite and sent it for vetting vide note dated
13.10.2017 SLO(LD)-11 has stated that this is triparty unique
case wherein a lease has to be executed in favour of Badarpur
Traders Union and further sub-lease in favour of the members
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 16 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
of the Union. The contents of perpetual lease of House Building
Cooperative Societies (Group Housing Societies) available with
DDA (Disposal of Nazul Land) Rules 1981 taken considering
the Badarpur Traders Union shall act like a society and
Triparty sub-lease has to be executed to its members like
members of the societies.
Draft perpetual lease seen & also seen by DY· CLA-III. Format
of perpetual lease of House Building Cooperative Societies,
Group Housing Societies (Forrn-A) available· with DDA
{Disposal of Nazul Land) Rules- 1981 has taken into
consideration with following amendments.
1 Society replaced as Badarpur Traders Union.
2 Delhi Co-operative societies Act- 1972 replaced as trade
·union Act-1926.
3. The word residential & residential plots replaced as
commercial and commercial plot.
4 Clause 5 (a) and (b) of the perpetual lease (Form A) deleted
which deals with eligibility to be a membership society for
residential plot having only one residential plot to each of its
member or whose wife/husband or any of his/her dependents
relatives including unmarried children does not own, in full or
in part an free hold or lease hold basis any residential plot or
house in urban area of Delhi, New Delhi or Delhi Cantonment,
and who may be approved by the LG, Delhi.
The proposed draft of perpetual lease is based upon Form A
available with DDA Act Disposal of Developed Nazul Land
Rules-1981 which has been amended as above.
The matter discussed with Dy. CLA-III as SLO(LD)-II is on
leave and aforesaid facts explained to her who desired to
return this file to the Commercial Department, if required any
alternation or deletion of the terms and conditions of the draft
or any further query the file may be refer to the Law
Department.
SLO(LD)
18/10/2017
DD(CL)
AD(CL) ”
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 17 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
15. It is crucial to notice that respondent after making amendments in the
proposed draft as recorded in his note dated October 18, 2017 returned back
the file to CL department only after discussion with the Deputy CLA-III and
as desired by the senior officer under whom he was working.
Surprisingly, the petitioner neither deemed it appropriate to cite
Deputy CLA-III as a witness in the inquiry proceedings nor placed her denial
qua noting dated October 18, 2017 made by the respondent. The matter
appears to have been proceeded on the assumption in the inquiry proceedings
that the matter was not discussed by the respondent with Deputy CLA-III
despite his categorical assertion in the noting dated October 18, 2017. It
appears that petitioner for the reasons best known overlooked the role of
Deputy CLA-III and the proceedings were initiated against respondent
making him the scapegoat.
16. It is further pertinent to observe that after marking of the file by SLO
(LD) to Deputy Director (CL) on October 18, 2017 the same was placed
through Assistant Director (CL), Deputy Director (CL), Director (CL), CL D
to Principal Commissioner (L). Thereupon a query was rightly raised by
Principal Commissioner (L), if the file has been seen by the CLA along with
the format. The observations of Principal Commissioner (L) in this regard
were attended vide note dated November 07, 2017 by ASO/CL with the
observations that the case is already in the knowledge of CLA and the format
of lease deed has been seen by the Deputy CLA-III as recorded by the SLO
(LD) in his note dated October 18, 2017.
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 18 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
In view of detailed note by the respondent dated October 18, 2017 it
was to the knowledge of Commercial Land Department regarding the levels
at which the file had been examined in Law Department. The matter could
not have been adversely proceeded against the respondent, who had merely
seen the file as a Link Officer and returned the file after examination as per
directions of his senior officer i.e. Deputy CLA-III. Reliance placed by
petitioner on Regulation 4(4) of DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal
Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations”) during course of
arguments affixing the liability on respondent is misplaced as the same only
provides general conduct to be followed by the officers and has to be
conjointly read in entirety. Regulation 4 prescribing „General Conduct‟ may
be further reproduced for reference, for testing the contentions raised by
learned counsel for the petitioner:-
“4. General Conduct – 1. Every employee of the Authority shall
at all time :
(i) Maintain absolute devotion to duty
(ii) Maintain absolute integrity
(iii) Do nothing which his unbecoming of a public servant.
2. Every employee of the Authority holding a
supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure integrity
and devotion to duty of all employees for the time being under
his control and authority.
3. No employee in the performance of his official duties or in
exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his
best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his
official superior.
4. The direction of the official superior shall ordinarily be in
writing. Oral directions to subordinate shall be avoided as far
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 19 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
as possible. Where the issue of oral directions becomes
unavoidable, the official superior shall confirm it in writing
immediately thereafter.
5. An employee who has received oral direction from his
official superior shall seek confirmation of the same in writing
as early as possible, whereupon it shall be the duty of the
official superior to confirm the direction in writing.”
It is pertinent to observe that Regulation 4(3) enjoins that no employee
in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers
conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is
acting under the direction of his official superior .
A mere reading of regulation 4(3) reflects that the respondent
complying with the directions of his superior officer i.e. Deputy CLA-III
examined the proposal in the file as Link Officer and returned back the same
to the concerned department i.e. „Commercial Land‟ as per directions and
after discussion with Deputy CLA-III. The respondent in no manner could
have contravened the directions of the superior officer i.e. Deputy CLA-III
since the matter was bonafidely examined and there are no allegations of
malafides , extraneous motives or corrupt practice against the respondent.
The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that in
terms of regulation 4(5), burden lay upon the respondent to seek
confirmation of the same in writing as early as possible, has to be seen in the
light of the fact that it was the duty of the superior officer i.e. Deputy CLA-
III to confirm the directions in writing. It has already been observed that for
the reasons best known, the statement of Deputy CLA-III has not even been
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 20 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
recorded by the petitioner in inquiry for confirming in case the factual note
recorded by the respondent on October 18, 2017 is factually incorrect.
In the aforesaid background, we do not find any merit in the
contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that non-forwarding
of the file to Deputy CLA-III vide note dated October 18, 2017 by the
respondent amounted to misconduct, since respondent merely acted as per
the directions of his senior officer i.e. Deputy CLA-III. In the present case,
the „misconduct‟ by the respondent is not discernible from the facts and
circumstances and the action has been wrongly initiated against the
respondent.
The observations of the Tribunal in para 17 of the impugned order to
the extent that the respondent has been subjected to a very harsh penalty in
the matter without any substantial evidence is to be seen in the light of the
categorical finding that the record did not indicate any guilt on the part of the
respondent.
17. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the order
passed by the Tribunal as the substantive evidence does not in any manner
prove the charge against the respondent. Since the respondent has faced the
ignominy of demotion and working at a lower rank, pursuant to the penalty
imposed in disciplinary proceedings, which has been set aside, we impose a
cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to be paid by the
petitioner/DDA to the respondent. Further, financial benefits which may
accrue to the respondent, as held by the Tribunal be paid with interest @ 7%
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 21 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17
per annum .
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA)
JUDGE
(V. KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
AUGUST 04, 2023 /mr/sd
W.P.(C) 4802/2023 Page 22 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:04.08.2023
16:23:17