Sh.Sri Krishna v. MCD

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

NO ANIL KUMAR, J. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 17th April, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No.243/2009 titled as Sh.Sri Krishna v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, dismissing his original application filed against the punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect imposed by order dated 25th October, 2000 and dismissal of his appeal 2010:DHC:1482-DB by order dated 30th April, 2002 which were challenged by the petitioner after retirement from service on 30th November, 2008, in January,

2009. The Tribunal has held that the application is not only barred by limitation as provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985 but also suffers from delay and latches. The petitioner was charge sheeted on 6th October, 1997 and at that time he was posted as Zonal Engineer in city zone of MCD and was holding two charges as Zonal Engineer (Building) and Zonal Engineer (Dangerous Building). The allegation against him was that he committed gross negligence and misconduct and failed to maintain devotion to duty by connivance with the owner/builder of property No.1721, Cheera Khana, Nai Sarak, Delhi. A request for repair was received from Sh.Atul Mehta, owner of the property which was granted immediately on the same date by the petitioner without ascertaining any comment from the dangerous building department and without verifying that a show cause notice under Section 344 (i) and 343 of DMC Act had already been issued to the said owner. The owner of the building was able to get a stay on the basis of the reply received from the petitioner to the request of the owner of the building for permission for repair. The enquiry officer had held taking into consideration the different facts which were proved against him that there was connivance between the charged official that is the petitioner and the owner of the building and the disciplinary authority agreeing with the report of the enquiry officer rightly imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect. The order imposing punishment dated 25th October, 2000 was affirmed in appeal by order dated 30th April, 2002. The Original Application before the Tribunal challenging the order of punishment dated 25th October, 2002 affirmed in appeal on 30th April, 2002 was filed on 21st January, 2009. The tribunal had noted that there was no application for condonation of delay along with the Original Application and consequently the delay in filing the original application could not be condoned under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The learned counsel for the petitioner before us has contended that he had been making representations to the respondent for filing the original application. However, merely making representation to the respondent shall not extend the limitation for filing the original application. The learned counsel is also unable to show any precedent laying down that on account of making representations the limitation for filing the original application can be extended. The petitioner has also failed to establish even the alleged representations allegedly filed by him against the penalty order dated 25th October, 2000 and 30th April, 2002, as only one undated representation was filed before the Tribunal. The learned counsel has admitted that copies of none of the alleged representations has been filed even before this Court. In the circumstances, the plea that the petitioner had been making representations against the punishment imposed upon him which was confirmed in appeal, can be accepted. In these circumstances the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner has failed even to establish that he had been filing representations against the punishment imposed upon him cannot be faulted and therefore, the finding that the original application filed by the petitioner was barred under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 cannot be interfered with. The learned counsel is unable to show any cogent reason challenging the order awarding punishment almost after 9 years which has also been done after his retirement. In the circumstances, the petitioner has failed to make out any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal dismissing the petition does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which will require any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is without any merit, and it is, therefore, dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. MARCH 12, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. ‘k’