t a_-. ,\- o/o L8-02-2009 7# Present: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. +W.P.(C) No. 888L/2008 & CM Appl. No. L7056 'n08 ,F The respondent herein had worked as ]unior Engineer from 1992-1999. While functioning as suckg he was inter alia entxasted with the supervision and execution of work concerning the Youth Hostel at Gurgaon. On the allegations that while supervising the said work in the year 1994, some serious lapses were found on his part. I{e was served with a charge-sheet in the year 2004 i.e. 10 years after the alleged irregularities committed by him. In this charge-sheet, two articles of charges were leveled against the respondent. As per Article - I, the respondent had failed to get a number of items in the said works executed in accordance with the required specifications. Further, there were defects and sub-standard work was executed. It was also alleged that he had not recorded those defects in the site order book or brought to the notice of Assistant Engineer/Executive Engineer. I Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:20.07.2024 17:18 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified As per Article - II, the allegations against the respondent were that he had failed to get the number of mandatory and field tests carried out. Thus, the inaction on the part of the respondent facilitated in the use of substandard flush door shutters and pre-cast Terrazzo tiles in the work as found subsequently when the samples for the same were collected by CQS Team from the work site. Though the said work, which the respondent was supervising at some point of time was executed between >1992-1999, the petitioner herein had conceded that the respondent was in- charge of the work from 08.02.1993 upto 15.03.1994, which was pointed out by u corrigendum, the above position had been clarified. Inquiry was held into those charges and Inquiry Officer submitted his report as per which charge in respect of Article No. II was not proved. Article-I had been proved partly, viz., only to the extent that he did not make entries of various defects in the site order book or otherwise brought to the notice of t Assistant Engineer/Executive Engineer. On this component of charge of Article No.-I having been proved against the respondent, as per the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction to one stage in scale of pay for the period of two years without cumulative effect vide orders dated 23.01,.2006. It needs to be mentioned that Disciplinary q I Authority accepted the findings of the hrquiry Officer. A departmental appeal preferred by the respondent was also failed and thereafter he knocked the door of the Tribunal by filing OA No. 1256/2007. This has been allowed by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 16.01.2008. Challenging that judgment, the present writ petition was filed in December 2008 i.e. almost a gap of 11 months. Perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal would bring out the following significant aspects in l,, quashiog the inquiry and the resultant punishment: a) Though the allegations as raised pertain to a period1993-94, the charge-sheet was issued after 10 years i.e. in the year 2003. This is so, even when the building was inspected in the year 1999 i.e. even after inspection report for four years, no action was taken. b) Though allegedly, there were some defects in the building, the same was occupied in the year 1994 and nothing happened thereafter for quite some time. In these circumstances/ as opined by the Tribunal, asking the respondent to defend such charges, was extremely urunanageable. There was callous indifference to the 5 f ) in J/ execution of the project and the structure had been unauthonzed occupation for as much as five years. The department could not explain in the inquiry that why full payment was made to the contractor in the year 1999 i.e. after five years even when at that time as per inspectiory some defects were found. It was not disputed even at that time that sufficient steps were not taken to enforce the contractual terms. Significantly, the dispute between the contractor and the department were referred to the arbitration. Even the learned Arbitrator did not find anything against the contractor which would poirit out to the defective works having been executed by the contractor. c) More importantly, h the Inquiry Report, the Inquiry Officer did not even mentioned about the testimonv of the witnesses produced by the respondent and refused to consider the same. He only took note of the prosecution evidence and on that basis returned his findings. d) Even on behalf of the prosecution only one wifiress was examined. That witness was from Vigilance Section who 4 rb produced the report prepared by the Superintendent Engineer in the year 1.lggg alleging defects in the work. However, the said Superintendent Engineer was not produced and therefore, he was neither examined nor any opportunity was given to the respondent to cross-examine that witness. Notwithstanding, the same report was accepted as gospel truth. The wituress from Vigilance who appeared in the inquiry had admitted that he had never ;"'":,"::":'::"',J:; "":,":"':'J,,::':" respondent. Tribunal also found that when as per Inquiry Officer in respect of charge-sheet Article-Il was not proved and some of the accusation in Article-I was also not proved, the charge which is partly proved could not stand in view of findings recorded of Article - II having not been proved. Therefore, charge No. 1 as partly proved could not have been sustained as the findings were contradicted to what was recorded in respect of charge No.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not seek the ,-/l.r aforesaid reasons given by the Tribunal in quashing the inquiry. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is dismissed in limine. SURESH KAIT, J. February 18,2009 Pmc (M'lq ah#rKtlt -v