Rajesh Khanna vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 28 October 2026

ORDER

Per Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J): The applicant has filed the present Original Application challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, and the order dated 24.07.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal. The applicant is a graduate in Civil Engineering and was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the year 1990 against the direct recruitment quota in accordance with the relevant Recruitment Rules. He was promoted as Executive Engineer (Civil) on an ad hoc basis on 14.09.2000 and was subsequently regularised in the said post without any break in service vide order dated 08.09.2008. The disciplinary proceedings in question pertain to the period when he was working as Executive Engineer (Civil). He is presently working as Superintending Engineer (Civil) on an ad hoc basis since 25.03.2010. His case was kept in a sealed cover in the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held in 2015 on account of the pendency of the present disciplinary matter.

2. The case relates to two projects, namely, Sawan Park and Roshanara Garden, undertaken in connection with the construction works concerning railway crossings in Delhi. Out of 31 railway crossings in Delhi, 16 fell within the jurisdiction of the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The applicant submits that the projects were processed in accordance with the prescribed departmental procedure. M/s Park Project Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., which had been appointed as Project Consultant after following the

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

due tendering process, prepared the estimates and justification of rates. These documents were thereafter required to be scrutinised and verified by the concerned Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer, followed by examination by the Planning Department and the Technical Section. The estimates were processed through the concerned departmental authorities, including the Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer, Engineer-in-Chief, Additional Commissioner and Commissioner, before being placed before the Standing Committee for financial approval, wherever required. The applicant contends that the estimates, comparative statements, justification of rates and other relevant documents were dealt with in accordance with the established procedure and that the execution of the works was subject to the supervision of the concerned departmental officers.

3. Vide charge-sheet dated 22.04.2014, twelve articles of charge were framed against the applicant, alleging, inter alia, that he had acted in connivance with the contractor and subordinate staff in passing the first three running bills in the Sawan Park project, resulting in alleged excess payment of Rs.3,10,39,077/- to M/s Rama Construction Company; failed to verify the actual lead of earth carriage and the availability of requisite SLF slips; failed to check the increase in the quantity of earthwork and the amounts paid to the contractors in both projects; failed to verify the justification of rates and obtain the requisite signatures of the Executive Engineer (Planning) and the consultant; failed to prepare or obtain comparative statements; failed to conduct proper negotiations with the contractor; overlooked the distinction between the units of

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

measurement, namely, per cubic metre and per cubic metre per kilometre; failed to incorporate the deviation and variation clause in the Sawan Park tender conditions; and failed to exercise proper supervision and control over his subordinate staff. The Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer concerned were also charge-sheeted in relation to the same works, though the allegations against them were framed with reference to their respective roles.

4. A common inquiry was conducted against eleven officers allegedly involved in the matter. According to the applicant, although the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), prior to the issuance of the charge-sheets, had initially recommended different levels of action against the officers, major-penalty charge-sheets were ultimately issued against all of them. The Inquiry Officer, however, held the charges proved only against two officers, including the applicant and a Technical Officer. The Disciplinary Authority ultimately exonerated the other officers while imposing a penalty upon the applicant. The applicant further submits that a preliminary inquiry had been conducted by Shri Feroz Ahmed, Chief Engineer, and that the findings of the preliminary inquiry were substantially similar to those of the regular inquiry. Shri Feroz Ahmed subsequently appeared as PW-1 during the regular inquiry and, according to the applicant, responded to the material questions by stating that the matters were part of the record. He was also a member of the committee constituted by the Commissioner to supervise the works in question.

5. The applicant contends that the Inquiry Officer's findings are self-contradictory and unsupported by the evidence on record. He

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

submits that Charge No. 11, concerning the alleged adoption of a lead of 20 kilometres instead of 10 kilometres, was held not proved, and that the other charges, being connected with and dependent upon the same allegations, could not have been sustained without independent and cogent evidence. In particular, he disputes the finding that he was responsible for the preparation of the justification of rates merely because the relevant documents were routed through him. According to him, the justification of rates had been prepared by the consultant and thereafter signed by the Technical Assistant and the applicant before being forwarded to the higher authorities and the Planning Department for scrutiny. He submits that the relevant documents, including those appearing at pages 235 to 243 of the inquiry record, established the consultant's role in preparing the justification of rates. He also relies upon the findings concerning the Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer, against whom the allegation that the justification of rates had not been prepared by the consultant was not proved. The applicant further contends that the finding regarding the absence of the signature of the Executive Engineer (Planning) is inconsistent with the treatment of the related charge concerning scrutiny by the Planning Department. He maintains that the estimates and rate justifications were processed through the prescribed departmental channels and that any discrepancy in the adoption of standard DSR items was, at best, an inadvertent error and not evidence of misconduct.

6. The applicant further submits that the comparative statement relating to the two projects was available on the inquiry record but was allegedly overlooked by the Inquiry Officer. He also relies upon

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

the document concerning negotiations with the contractor, which, according to him, demonstrated that negotiations had taken place on the recommendation of the Chief Engineer and that the contractor had agreed to reduce the overall tender amount in the Sawan Park project. He disputes the allegation that he had failed to incorporate the deviation and variation clause, contending that no such requirement existed in the applicable rule book at the relevant time. He also relies upon the testimony of Shri Sanjay Jain, Chief Engineer, who appeared as a defence witness and, according to the applicant, supported his case by stating that no case was made out against him. The applicant submits that the testimony of the said witness remained unshaken during cross-examination. He further points out that, out of the 26 bills prepared in relation to the projects, only the first three were signed by him, whereas the remaining 23 bills were passed by Shri Hassan, who had taken over charge from him. According to the applicant, no show-cause notice or charge-sheet was issued to Shri Hassan in respect of those bills, despite the fact that he continued in service beyond his normal date of superannuation up to June 2014.

7. The applicant also asserts that no loss was ultimately caused to the Corporation and that no personal gain accrued to him. He submits that, under the applicable procedure, any excess payment made to a contractor was liable to be adjusted in subsequent bills and that final adjustments were required to be made before payment of the final bill. According to him, such adjustments were carried out by his successor. He further relies upon the CVC Office Memorandum dated 18.10.2017, which, as per his contention,

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

acknowledged that there was no irregularity at the estimation stage. He also submits that the alleged checking of the estimates prepared by the consultant was the responsibility of the concerned officers at the respective stages and that the committee responsible for checking the justification of rates did not include him. The applicant further relies upon the documents relating to the CBI proceedings, contending that the CBI had found no material against him in respect of the allegation of criminal breach of trust and that the findings arising from those proceedings supported his defence in the departmental inquiry.

8. The applicant states that, when the proposed penalty of removal from service was communicated to him, he approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 1180/2018, in which an order of status quo was passed. The said Original Application was subsequently disposed of with liberty to the applicant to submit a supplementary reply, which he duly filed on 12.07.2018. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 16.10.2018, imposing upon him the penalty of reduction in pay by five stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The applicant contends that the penalty order did not adequately discuss his defence or the material evidence on record and that the conclusion imposing the penalty was reached without proper consideration of his submissions. He further submits that the Disciplinary Authority proceeded on incorrect factual assumptions, including the description of Shri Hassan as an Assistant Engineer, whereas, according to the applicant, he was working as an Executive Engineer and had been granted an extension in that capacity.

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

9. The applicant preferred an appeal against the penalty order before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected vide order dated 24.07.2019. He challenges the appellate order on the ground that the Appellate Authority travelled beyond the allegations contained in the charge-sheet and introduced or relied upon grounds that had not formed part of the charges served upon him. He further contends that the Appellate Authority failed to independently examine the relevant evidence, the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the documents supporting his defence. According to the applicant, the appellate order is based on incorrect facts and is contrary to the findings of the Inquiry Officer, without recording a proper disagreement with those findings in accordance with law. He maintains that the relevant documents concerning the consultant's preparation of the justification of rates, the comparative statement, negotiations with the contractor and the testimony of the defence witness were either ignored or not properly appreciated by the disciplinary and appellate authorities.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned disciplinary and appellate orders are unsustainable in law as the charges levelled against the applicant were not established by reliable evidence and the authorities failed to consider the material available on the inquiry record. Counsel contended that the applicant had discharged his duties diligently and honestly in accordance with the prescribed departmental procedure and that the estimates and justification of rates had been prepared by the appointed consultant and examined at various departmental levels. It was argued that the Inquiry Officer's findings were internally inconsistent, particularly in

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

view of Charge No. 11 having been held not proved, and that the findings concerning the remaining interconnected charges were not supported by independent evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the Inquiry Officer had overlooked the comparative statement, the documents evidencing negotiations with the contractor, the consultant-prepared justification of rates and the defence testimony of Shri Sanjay Jain, Chief Engineer. It was also argued that the applicant could not be held solely responsible for the alleged irregularities when the relevant documents had passed through several departmental authorities and the other officers concerned had either been exonerated or had not been proceeded against in respect of the subsequent running bills.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the absence of any established personal gain or ultimate financial loss to the Corporation, the alleged absence of irregularity at the estimation stage, and the material emerging from the CBI proceedings had not been properly considered by the authorities. Counsel submitted that the Disciplinary Authority had failed to record adequate reasons for imposing the penalty of reduction in pay by five stages for three years with cumulative effect, while the Appellate Authority had mechanically affirmed the penalty without independently considering the grounds raised in the appeal. It was further contended that the Appellate Authority had travelled beyond the scope of the charge- sheet and relied upon grounds not forming part of the original charges, thereby causing prejudice to the applicant. On these grounds, learned counsel submitted that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind, erroneous appreciation of the inquiry

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

record and failure to consider the applicant's defence, and accordingly sought their setting aside along with consequential reliefs in accordance with law.

12. Counsel for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit and submitted that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in disciplinary matters is limited to judicial review and that it cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the disciplinary authority regarding the quantum of punishment, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Parma Nanda v. State of Haryana and State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow. It is submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant, Shri Rajesh Khanna, for alleged financial irregularities in the execution of ROB/RUB projects at Sawan Park and Roshanara Garden, involving excess payments to the contractor, failure to verify the actual lead of earth carriage, improper scrutiny of rates and quantities, and lack of supervision over subordinate staff. It is further submitted that a regular departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with the applicable DMC Services (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1959, providing the applicant reasonable opportunities to defend himself, and that the Inquiry Officer held the charges proved on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. The respondents maintain that the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty after due consideration of the inquiry report and the applicant’s reply, and that the action was proportionate to the misconduct established. It is also submitted that the applicant was subsequently compulsorily retired in public interest under FR 56(j) and Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, vide order dated 31.10.2019. Accordingly, the respondents

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

contend that the departmental proceedings and the impugned action are legally sustainable, that no procedural irregularity has been established, and that the Original Application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

13. In addition to the above submissions, counsel for the applicant has filed the written submissions and submitted that the applicant has challenged the penalty order dated 06.10.2018 and the appellate order dated 31.07.2019. It is contended that the inquiry report need not be separately challenged, as it stands merged with the final order of the disciplinary authority under the doctrine of merger, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 359. It is further submitted that the disciplinary authority had independently considered the inquiry record, the applicant’s reply and his personal hearing before imposing the penalty, and that the inquiry report is neither binding on the disciplinary authority nor free from contradictions and findings contrary to the record.

14. Counsel further submits that Charges Nos. 4, 5 and 9 were wrongly held proved, Charge No. 1 was partly proved, and Charge No. 11 was not proved. It is argued that the findings regarding the applicant’s role in the alleged irregularities are inconsistent with the documentary evidence and the findings concerning other officers, particularly the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer. It is also contended that Charge Nos. 2 and 3 were incorrectly established against the applicant despite the relevant provisions of the CPWD specifications, the role of the special committee and sub-committee,

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

and the absence of supporting evidence regarding the justification of rates. Further, the applicant disputes the findings relating to Charge No. 10 and submits that the relevant estimates were prepared by the consultant and checked by the concerned committee. Accordingly, counsel contends that the inquiry findings suffer from material inconsistencies and are unsustainable in view of the evidence on record.

15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.

16. The applicant has filed the present Original Application challenging the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal. The principal question for consideration is whether the impugned orders suffer from any illegality, procedural irregularity, non-application of mind or perversity warranting interference by this Tribunal in the exercise of its power of judicial review.

17. At the outset, it is well settled that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited. This Tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority and cannot reappreciate the evidence as if conducting a fresh inquiry. Interference is warranted only where the findings are unsupported by evidence, perverse, based on irrelevant considerations, or where the proceedings suffer from violation of the applicable rules or principles of natural justice.

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

18. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court cannot ordinarily substitute its own conclusions for those of the disciplinary authority. Similar principles have been laid down in Union of India v. Parma Nanda, (1989) 2 SCC 177, and Union of India & Ors. v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, wherein the limitations on judicial review in disciplinary matters have been explained.

19. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78, particularly paragraphs 34 and 35, to contend that the charges in a departmental inquiry must be clear, definite and specific and that the inquiry must be conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Reliance has also been placed upon The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Umesh, Civil Appeal Nos. 1763–1764 of 2022, particularly paragraph 17, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority and does not ordinarily reappreciate the evidence.

20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (supra), Union of India v. Parma Nanda (supra) and Union of India & Ors. v. P. Gunasekaran (supra) to submit that the Tribunal cannot reassess the evidence or interfere with the punishment merely because another view of the matter may be possible.

21. Having considered the judgments relied upon by both parties, we find that the principles laid down therein are well settled. The

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

requirement of clear and specific charges and adherence to the principles of natural justice, as emphasised in Gyan Chand Chattar (supra), must be read harmoniously with the limitations on judicial review explained in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) and P. Gunasekaran (supra). The Tribunal is required to examine whether the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and whether the findings recorded by the departmental authorities are supported by evidence and are free from perversity or material procedural irregularity.

22. In the present case, the disciplinary proceedings arose out of alleged financial irregularities in the execution of the Sawan Park and Roshanara Garden projects. The allegations, inter alia, concerned the passing of running bills, verification of earthwork quantities and lead, scrutiny of rates and failure to exercise proper supervisory control. The applicant was working as Executive Engineer (Civil) during the relevant period and was, therefore, required to discharge the duties attached to his post in accordance with the prescribed departmental procedure. In this regard, one of the charges framed against the applicant (Charged Officer) was that he, in connivance with the contractor and the Junior Engineer (Project), prepared an incorrect bill for payment and submitted the same to the Executive Engineer (Project) for passing, thereby resulting in an alleged excess payment of Rs. 39,51,940.40 to the contractor, M/s Rama Construction Company.

23. The applicant has contended that the estimates and justification of rates were prepared by the consultant and that the

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

relevant documents were examined by various departmental authorities, including the concerned committees and officers of the Planning Department. He has also relied upon the comparative statements, documents relating to negotiations with the contractor and the testimony of the defence witness. However, the fact that the estimates were prepared by a consultant or examined at different departmental levels would not, by itself, absolve the applicant of his own responsibilities in relation to the scrutiny and recommendation of bills and the supervision of the works.

24. The question for consideration is not whether the applicant has offered an alternative explanation of the circumstances, but whether the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and accepted by the Disciplinary Authority have a rational basis in the evidence adduced during the inquiry. The Tribunal cannot substitute its own assessment of the evidence merely because another interpretation may be possible.

25. The applicant has further contended that Charge No. 11 was held not proved and, therefore, the findings in respect of the other charges are inconsistent. We are unable to accept this contention as a ground for interference by itself. Each article of charge has to be examined on the basis of the evidence relevant thereto. The failure to establish one charge does not automatically invalidate the findings in respect of the remaining charges, unless it is demonstrated that such findings are inseparably dependent upon the charge which was not proved or are otherwise unsupported by evidence.

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

26. The contention that other officers were exonerated or that no disciplinary action was initiated against the successor officer in respect of subsequent bills also does not, by itself, establish that the findings against the applicant are unsustainable. The responsibility of each officer has to be assessed with reference to his duties, role and conduct during the relevant period. Similarly, the applicant’s contention that no personal gain accrued to him or that subsequent adjustments were made in the payments would not, by itself, absolve him of responsibility if a failure to discharge his official duties is otherwise established.

27. We have also considered the applicant’s reliance upon the preliminary inquiry, the testimony of PW-1, the defence evidence and the documents relating to the CBI proceedings. The findings of a preliminary inquiry cannot, by themselves, determine the outcome of a regular departmental inquiry. The latter has to be decided on the evidence brought on record during the regular proceedings. Likewise, the outcome of criminal proceedings does not automatically determine the result of departmental proceedings, as the nature of the proceedings and the applicable standard of proof may differ.

28. It is also well settled that misconduct in departmental proceedings is required to be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. The disciplinary authority is required to determine, on an assessment of the evidence available on record, whether the allegations against the charged officer are more probable than not. At the same time, the findings must have a rational evidentiary basis and cannot rest upon

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

conjectures or assumptions. The applicant’s objections, therefore, have to be examined within these settled parameters.

29. The applicant has further alleged that the Disciplinary Authority did not adequately consider his defence and that the Appellate Authority travelled beyond the allegations contained in the charge-sheet. These are relevant considerations in judicial review. However, mere disagreement with the conclusions recorded by the authorities or the absence of an elaborate discussion of every submission does not, by itself, establish non-application of mind. Interference would be warranted if a material procedural violation, denial of reasonable opportunity or reliance upon an extraneous allegation causing prejudice were established. On the grounds urged before us, no such infirmity has been sufficiently demonstrated so as to warrant interference with the impugned order.

30. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the applicant’s contentions primarily seek a reappreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and substitution of his interpretation for that adopted by the departmental authorities. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra), Parma Nanda (supra), P. Gunasekaran (supra) and The State of Karnataka v. Umesh (supra), this Tribunal cannot undertake such an exercise in the absence of any established ground for judicial interference.

31. As regards the penalty imposed, no sufficient ground has been established in the submissions placed before us to hold that the punishment warrants interference within the settled parameters of

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N

judicial review. The Tribunal cannot substitute its own view regarding the appropriate penalty merely because a different or lesser punishment may also have been possible.

32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The Original Application is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending MA(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Dr. Sumeet Jerath)

(Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A)

Member (J)

/lg/

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSAI N