K.L. Parashar v. Delhi Development Authority

1. The challenge in this petition is to order dated December 24, 2022 passed in RA 31/2020 and order dated September 14, 2018 passed in OA 4206/2014, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’, for short) has dismissed the Original Application as well as the Review Application filed by the petitioner herein.

2. The only submission made by Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that OA wherein the impugned order has been passed is the second round of litigation, the earlier one being OA 18/2010 which was decided on October 17, 2012, whereby the Tribunal while dismissing the OA has in terms of paragraph 8 has directed as under: W.P.(C) 6401/2023 Page 2 “We are of the opinion that the above observations have not been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. We, therefore, wish to remand the matter back to the appellate authority to consider the matter again in the light of the facts put up by the Vigilance Decision and also the applicant in his reply and defence that many of the important files were not routed through him. No malafide or motive has also been proved against the applicant. In view of the same, the impugned appellate orders dated 18.06.2009 are quashed and set aside with direction to the appellate authority to consider the matter in the light of observations made by us and pass fresh, reasoned and speaking orders in accordance with law within a period three months from the date receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the above, the OA is disposed of.”

3. He submits, pursuant thereto, the Appellate Authority, i.e., Vice-Chairman of the DDA has passed an order dated June 25, 2013 whereby the Appellate Authority has not found any merit in the appeal filed by the petitioner and dismissed the same.

4. Mr. Chhibber submits, neither the Appellate Authority nor the Tribunal has considered the vigilance report based on which the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority.

5. He further submits that the Tribunal, noting the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, respondent and the position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of the departmental enquiry has dismissed the petition by stating as under without any justifiable finding: “8. In view of the facts of the case narrated above and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court W.P.(C) 6401/2023 Page 3 and in view of the applicant having not brought to our notice violation of any of the procedural rules, we do not find any merit in this OA. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No costs.”

6. He submits, appropriate shall be to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Birbal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would justify the order of the appellate authority as well as of the Tribunal by stating the appellate authority is not bound by the view taken by the vigilance department in the DDA and in the fact situation, can come to his own conclusion. According to him, the Appellate Authority has rightly concluded that the appeal filed by the petitioner is without merit and had accordingly dismissed the same. He also state, even the final conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be contested by the petitioner in the facts of this case.

8. We are not in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Birbal on the impugned order passed by the Tribunal inasmuch as there is no factual finding for the Tribunal to dismiss the petition in the manner it did in the impugned order.

9. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in order dated December 24, 2022 in RA 31/2020 as well as order dated September 14, 2018 in OA 4206/2014 and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration of the OA No 4206/2014, by hearing the counsel for the parties and pass a reasoned and speaking order. W.P.(C) 6401/2023 Page 4

10. We direct the Tribunal to decide the Original Application as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of first listing of the OA before the Tribunal.

11. The petition stands dispose of.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J MAY 29, 2023