M. Ramachandran, J. (Vice Chairman) - (1.) THE applicant is an Assistant Engineer working in the Delhi Development Authority. A memo of charges had been issued to him, on 04.03.2005, and after noticing the stand, an enquiry had been ordered to be held under Regulation 25 of DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulation, 1999. He had been ultimately imposed with a penalty as could be seen from Annexure A-2 whereby one increment with cumulative effect was to be withheld for a period of one year. THE appellate authority had rejected the appeal, and the applicant also refers to an order passed on 27.06.2007 whereby a review appeal also had been dismissed. This has led to this present OA, the applicant challenging Annexure A-2, as well as to the later orders.
(2.) The charge against the applicant was that while he was in charge of the Housing Branch (Enforcement) during the year, 2000, he had failed to take action for demolition of unauthorized construction which had come to the notice of the authority. Paragraph 2 of the statement of imputations, appended to the application, which the applicant had to answer, could be extracted hereunder: That the said Sh. J.P. Singh, Assistant Engineer (C) while dealing the case in File No. F.4 (137)2000/AE/Enf./SZ. failed to take action for demolition of unauthorized construction in flat No. 111, Munirka Enclave. In spite of issuance of SCN vide No. F.4 (137)2000/AE/Enf./SZ. dated 9.2.2000 and notice cum demolition order of even No. 320 dated 6.3.2000. After initiating the demolition order he had not bothered to initiate any action as revealed from 2/N of the said file. Thus, in short, the lapse alleged was that he had not bothered to initiate action of demolition and also failed to initiate action for fixing the demolition programme for executing the demolition order issued by the Deputy Director Enforcement.
(3.) THE plea raised by way of defence in the enquiry was that the allegation as above was forgetting the vital circumstances, namely, that at no time there was any specific authorization to proceed with the programme of demolition. In short, the submission was that unless there were directions coming from the superior authorities, by himself the applicant had no authority to initiate steps for demolition. THE next plea raised was that he was in charge of the Section only for a brief period as he had been transferred away to the civil circle, after brief occupation in the enforcement (on 29.05.2000). THErefore, it would not have been possible for the respondents to allege that he had been lethargic.;