R.P. 276/2009 IN WP (C) No. 3305 OF 2008 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R.P. 276/2009 IN WP (C) No. 3305 OF 2008 % Date of Decision: 07th May, 2010 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. . . . PETITIONERS through : Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate VERSUS SITA RAM & ORS …..RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Khanna,Advocate. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, J. (Oral) 1. Respondent herein was served with chargesheet dated 12th February, 1998 levelling certain charges against him. Enquiry was held in which charges were proved and on that basis disciplinary authority passed orders dated 17th November, 1998 imposing upon him the penalty of compulsory retirement. The respondent challenged this order by filing writ petition in this Court which was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal after the issuance of Notifications under Section 14 (2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act bringing the employees of DDA under the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal. This petition was allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 4th December, 2007 and order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority was set aside. Challenging that order, petitioner filed writ petition bearing no.3305/2008. This writ petition was partly allowed while maintaining the decision of the Tribunal on the merits of the case, another R.P. 276/2009 IN WP (C) No. 3305 OF 2008 Page 2 of 3 contention of the DDA that in such a case it should have been allowed to hold a fresh enquiry was accepted and on this basis order of the Tribunal was modified vide judgment dated 4.11.2008 making it clear that disciplinary authority could decide as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, fresh enquiry was required to be ordered or not. It was also observed that incase disciplinary authority decides to hold fresh enquiry, it would be open to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate orders in respect of the period from the date of compulsory retirement till reinstatement. At the same time, the DDA was also directed to reinstate the respondent with immediate effect and following directions in this behalf was given:- “We are informed that when the enquiry was held earlier against the respondent, he was not placed under suspension and he continued to discharge his duties. If fresh enquiry is to be held, since the punishment order has already been set aside, conclusions that would follow would be to reinstate the respondent, and therefore, we are not interfering with that direction passed by the learned Tribunal”. 2. Present review petition is preferred by the DDA seeking review of the aforesaid directions whereby this Court directed the DDA to reinstate the respondent. It is submitted that at the time of giving these directions it was not brought to the notice of the Court that there is a specific provision in DDA (Salaries, allowances and condition of service) Regulations, 1961 which deals with such a situation in the form of Regulation 20 (4) and it reads as under:- “ Where a penalty of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon an employee is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of law and the disciplinary authority in consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold further enquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original orders of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders.” R.P. 276/2009 IN WP (C) No. 3305 OF 2008 Page 3 of 3 3. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid Regulations are framed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 47 of the Delhi Development Act, and therefore, are having statutory force. As per this Regulation, once the penalty of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement is set aside by a Court of law and disciplinary authority decides to hold fresh enquiry against delinquent employee “… the employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original orders of dismissal or removal……..”. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid statutory provisions, it is clear that our directions to reinstate the respondent was no correct and, therefore, needs to be modified. Accordingly, we modify the orders dated 4th November, 2008 to this extent and direct that the respondent shall be deemed to be under suspension from the date of compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders that may be passed by the disciplinary authority. 5. Learned Counsel for the DDA informs that show cause notice has already been given to the respondent about the quantum of suspension allowance which would be payable to the respondent and respondent has also filed his reply thereto. The decision thereon shall be taken within two weeks and whatever suspension allowance is admissible to the respondent for the aforesaid period shall be paid to him within four weeks. 6. Another error which crept in the orders dated 4th November, 2008 is pointed out by learned counsel for the DDA that the name of a witness who had appeared in the fact finding enquiry is typed as Mansukh Ram whereas the actual name of the witness was Nanak Chand s/o Mansukh Ram. The correction is carried out in today’s date and initialed. (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE May 07, 2010. skb