Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 04.07.2025
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manu chaturvedi, Standing Counsel for MCD
Through: Mr. Ashesh Lal, Adv.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. In view of the appearance of Mr. Ashesh Lal, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent, the Caveat stands discharged. CM APPLs. 38474-75/2025 (Exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 9041/2025 CM APPL. 38473/2025
3. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal) in Original Application No. 3679/2016 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘OA’) titled Rohit Goel, JE v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors., whereby the said OA filed by the respondent No. 1 herein was allowed with the following directions:
4. To give a brief background of the facts in which the present petition arises, the petitioner initiated major penalty proceedings against the respondent No. 1 by issuing charge sheet dated 19.10.2007. The Inquiry Officer, in his report dated 31.03.2015, opined that charges under charges no. 1, 5 and 6 stood proved against the respondent No. 1 and charges no. 2, 3, 4 and 7 were found to be not proved.
5. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the Inquiry Report, vide Order dated 14.05.2015, imposed a penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect for three years upon the respondent No. 1.
6. Admittedly, before passing the above said Order, neither the copy of the Inquiry Report was supplied to respondent No. 1 nor an opportunity of hearing was granted to him. It was only post the said decision, that by a notice dated 21.05.2018, the respondent No. 1 was called upon to make a representation against the penalty. A copy of the Inquiry Report was attached to this notice.
7. In answer, the respondent No. 1 made a detailed representation against the proposed penalty, however, the same was summarily rejected vide Order dated 03.09.2015 passed by the Vigilance Department of the petitioner, observing as under: “Now, Commissioner, North DMC the Competent Authority after considering reply submitted by Shri Rohit Goel, Jr. Engineer and allied record of the case has observed that he has been given ample opportunity to defend his case before the Inquiry Officer hence rejected his request of personal hearing and, has finally, confirmed the proposed penalty of ‘stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect for three years’ upon Shri Rohit Goel, Jr. Engineer, vide his orders dated 25.8.2015.”
8. Therefore, again no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the respondent No. 1. The Order also did not reflect any reasons for rejecting the representation of the respondent No. 1 against the proposed penalty.
9. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which again came to be dismissed vide Order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the respondent No. 2 herein.
10. The respondent No. 1 thereafter approached the learned Tribunal in form of the OA, which has been allowed by the learned Tribunal by placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the learned Tribunal found violation of principles of natural justice because of non-supply of the Inquiry Report to the respondent No. 1 prior to the issuance of the Order dated 14.05.2015 by the Disciplinary Authority, the learned Tribunal should have instead of setting aside the entire disciplinary proceedings, remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to start afresh from that stage.
12. He submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the respondent No. 2, as an Appellate Authority, had considered the entire plea of the respondent No. 1 against the penalty and thereafter rejected his representation. He submits that, therefore, there was due compliance to the principles of natural justice in any case. He further submits that no prejudice was caused to the respondent No. 1 due to the non-supply of the Inquiry Report by the Disciplinary Authority.
13. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, find no merit in the same.
14. In the present case, admittedly, the Inquiry Officer had found four of the charges as not proved against the respondent No. 1. The Disciplinary Authority, however, without issuing any Show Cause Notice to the respondent No. 1, leave alone supplying the copy of the Inquiry Report to the respondent No. 1, proceeded to pass an Order dated 14.05.2015 proposing a penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect for three years on the respondent No. 1. It is only thereafter, that the respondent No. 1, vide a Show Cause Notice dated 21.05.2015, was given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed penalty and not against the finding of his guilt for the charges that were found to have been proved against him.
15. Though the respondent No. 1 gave a detailed representation in answer to the said Show Cause Notice, the same was summarily rejected by the competent authority without giving any reasons for the same, and merely stating that the respondent No. 1 had been given ample opportunity to defend his case before the Inquiry Officer, which is no reason to reject his representation against the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The prejudice caused to the respondent No. 1 due to the violation of principles of natural justice, both in form of denial of opportunity of a hearing as well as for reasons of rejecting his representation, therefore, was writ large on the face of the record. This violation cannot be answered only because the respondent No. 1 availed of his appellate remedy.
16. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned Tribunal that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice vitiating the entire proceedings.
17. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that having found the above, the learned Tribunal should have remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for a fresh consideration, also does not impress us in the facts of the present case.
18. As noted hereinabove, the inquiry proceedings were initiated pursuant to the charge sheet dated 19.10.2007 and culminated in the Order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 14.05.2015, and the confirmation thereof by the competent authority vide Order dated 03.09.2015. The appeal against the same also stood rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 17.08.2016. There has been a long passage of time since then as well. In the present case, therefore, even remand of the matter at this stage, would cause prejudice to the respondent no. 1, denying him adequate and fruitful opportunity to represent against the proposed disciplinary action.
19. Having found no infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal, the petition along with pending application is, accordingly, dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J JULY 4, 2025 p/kj/ik Click here to check corrigendum, if any