Prakash Chand Arya vs GNCTD on 28 October 2026

1. Lt. Governor of Delhi, Raj Niwas, Delhi.

2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Through its Commissioner, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi

…Respondents

(By Advocate: Ms. Preksha Gaur, Ms. Cauveri Birbal)

KSHITIJ SAXENA

ORDER (ORAL) Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and, with their assistance, have also perused the pleadings available on record.

2. In the present OA, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) To quash and set-aside the impugned Charge Memo dated 22.05.2019 (A-3), Inquiry Report dated 25.02.2022 (A-4), Punishment Order dated 23.07.2024 (A-1) & Appellate Authority order dated 09.06.2025 (A-2) and restore all the benefits as withheld on the basis of said orders.

(ii) To declare the proceedings as initiated vide charge memo dated 22.05.2019 and subsequent proceedings based on charge memo as Illegal and unjustified and direct the respondents to release all consequential benefits to the applicant from due date including arrears of pay. Pecuniary loss may be compensated with 12% interest per annum of the amount.

(iii) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) To allow the OA with cost.”

3. The claim of the applicant has been disputed and contested by the respondents, who have filed a counter reply praying for dismissal of the OA with costs. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating his claim and the grounds in support thereof.

KSHITIJ SAXENA

4. The undisputed facts are that the applicant joined the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) as a Junior Engineer (JE) in August 2004. The applicant was posted as JE (Bldg.), Narela Zone and was given charge of Ward No. 31 on 19.12.2014. He was transferred from the said zone on 15.10.2015. Thus, the applicant remained posted in the said zone during the period from 19.12.2014 to 15.10.2015.

5. Vide impugned memorandum dated 22.05.2019, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant under Rule 8 of the Delhi Municipal Services (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959, with the following statement of charges: “Shri Prakash Chand Arya while working as Junior Engineer in ward no. 31, Building Department, Narela Zone w.e.f. 19.12.2014 to 15.10.2015 failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and committed gross misconduct which is unbecoming of Municipal employee on the following grounds:

1. He sealed the property No. 291, Swaran Park, Mundka, Delhi in a defective manner at basement on 15.11.2014 due to which owner/builder succeeded in carrying out unauthorized construction of ground floor and first floor.

2. He in connivance with owner/builder did not keep strict watch over the sealed property at basement floor on 15.11.2014 inspite of letter regarding unauthorized construction being carried on sent by SHO Mundka dated 02.02.2015 and allowed the owner/builder to carry out/complete further unauthorized construction of ground flоог.

3. He in connivance with owner/builder resealed the basement floor and ground floor defectively on 26.03.2015 and allowed the owner/builder to carry out and complete further unauthorized construction of first floor in the aforesaid sealed property.

4. He failed to initiate further prosecution action against the owner/builder U/S 466 and other actions as required under the amended DMC Act during his tenure in the said area.

KSHITIJ SAXENA

He, thereby, contravened Rule 3 (1) (i) (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (conduct) Rules, 1964 as made applicable to the employees of Municipal Corporation of Delhi.”

6. The allegations levelled against the applicant were denied by him, leading to the appointment of an Inquiry Officer (IO). The IO submitted the impugned report dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure A- 4), returning the findings that Charges II and III stood proved, whereas Charges I and IV were not proved. The applicant submitted his defence representation and the Disciplinary Authority, vide impugned order dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure A-1), imposed the penalty of “reduction by two lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three (03) years with cumulative effect”.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred a statutory appeal, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure A-2). Aggrieved by the impugned memorandum, the report of the IO, and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the applicant has filed the present OA.

8. Mr. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, has argued as under:

KSHITIJ SAXENA

i. The applicant has been proceeded against and punished for the alleged acts which had not even taken place during his tenure in the relevant ward, ii. The impugned inquiry report and the penalty orders are based on no evidence and are perverse, both on facts and in law, iii. The respondents have discriminated against the applicant, inasmuch as no action has been taken against anyone else in respect of the alleged acts, including the concerned Assistant Engineer (AE) and Assistant Executive Engineer (AXEN), iv. The impugned orders are the result of non-application of mind and have been passed mechanically.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, though the IO has returned findings holding Charges II and III to be proved, the said findings are based on no evidence. In this regard, he draws our attention to the impugned inquiry report, wherein, during the cross-examination of the prosecution witness (PW), the following question was put to him: “Have you any documentary evidence to prove the connivance of the CO with the owner-builder?” The answer given to such question is as follows: “Though there is no documentary evidence, yet the connivance was presumed through the action taken by the CO against the alleged property.”

KSHITIJ SAXENA

10. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the aforesaid answer of the prosecution witness clearly indicates that there was no documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations. Nevertheless, the prosecution presumed misconduct on the part of the applicant, and the IO returned findings holding two of the charges to be proved. While returning findings qua Charges II and III, the impugned inquiry report has recorded that the applicant facilitated the owner/builder in carrying out and completing further unauthorised construction on the first floor, despite receipt of the order dated 02.02.2025 (Ex. S-12) from the SHO, Police Station Mundka. However, the said exhibit pertains to another four-storey building, whereas the admitted case of the respondents is that the building in question was constructed only up to the second floor.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, although the adequacy and sufficiency of evidence may not be required strictly to prove, there must nevertheless be some evidence to support the allegations before a finding of misconduct can be recorded against an employee. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88, and Union of India and Others v. Gyan Chand Chhattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78.

KSHITIJ SAXENA

12. Learned counsel for the applicant, has also drawn our attention to the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, bearing the subject “Speaking Order under Section 345A of the DMC Act in respect of Property No. 291, Swarn Park, Mundka, Nangloi, New Delhi”, to contend that the said order categorically records as under: “Since, there is no sanction plan / permission with respect to the construction fraised in the subject property, the same is hereby, held to be unauthorized. However, the same Is in existence prior to the cut-of date of 01.06.2014, the same is protected from demolition/sealing action, till 31.12.2023 or till such time, the said protection is not withdrawn and extended. In view of the above, I, Ranjeet Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Narela Zone in exercise of the powers delegated upon me by the Commissioner, NDMC under Section 491 of DMC Act, hereby, order that the unauthorized construction in reference, vide show cause notice dated 07.02.2017 is an unauthorized construction but the same is protected under the provisions of "The National Capital territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Second Act, 2020" till 31.12.2023 or till such time, the said protection is not withdrawn and is extended by an Act of Parliament or otherwise.”

13. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a copy of the aforesaid order dated 07.04.2022 was also referred to and relied upon by the applicant before the respondents, inasmuch as the same was placed on record before the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. However, the said authorities failed and ignored to consider the same. While dealing with Charge No. III, the IO has recorded as under:

KSHITIJ SAXENA

“However, the impugned property was resealed on 26.3.2015 after taking approval of AE (Bldg.) concerned on dated 5.3.2015 (Ex.S-11) which shows defectiveness on the part of C.O. and A.E.(Bldg.) concerned, thereby facilitating the owner/builder to carry out and complete further unauthorized construction of first floor.”

14. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, though the case of the respondents is that there was dereliction of duty on the part of the CO (the applicant herein) and the concerned AE (Building) in facilitating the owner to carry out and complete further unauthorised construction, admittedly, no proceedings were initiated against the AE (Bldg.), the Executive Engineer, or any other person. Thus, the applicant has been discriminated against, which is not permissible in law. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment dated 05.03.2024 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1900/2019 titled Rahul Saraswat, EE (Civil) Vs. The Commissioner, North DMC & Another, wherein the punishment was quashed on the ground of discrimination.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, while passing the impugned penalty order, the Disciplinary Authority recorded the applicant’s tenure in the concerned ward as being from 10.05.2010 to 05.03.2014, which is patently erroneous in view of the tenure stated in the impugned charge memorandum. He further submits that the Appellate Authority has also failed to consider the order dated 07.04.2022 referred to hereinabove,

KSHITIJ SAXENA

despite the same having been placed before the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.

16. On the other hand, Ms. Preksha Gaur, learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently argued that the OA is devoid of merit. She submits that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the competent authority and concluded in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject, while following the principles of natural justice. The fairness of the inquiry is evident from the fact that, although four allegations were levelled against the applicant, the IO returned findings of guilt only in respect of two charges.

17. In the counter reply, the respondents have stated that the initiation of major penalty proceedings was approved against seven persons and minor penalty proceedings against two persons, as referred to in para 2 of the counter reply. The respondents have further stated in their counter reply that the applicant sought to shift the goalposts by contending that construction on property No. 291, Swarn Park, Mundka, Delhi, had already been completed up to the relevant stage in 2010, as reflected in the sale deed. They have also referred to the factory licence certificate issued by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation and an electricity bill dated 26.09.2015, which were stated to have been considered by the IO.

KSHITIJ SAXENA

18. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant miserably failed to keep a watch on the ongoing unauthorised construction and, therefore, the IO rightly returned findings holding Charges II and III to be proved. She contends that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have approached the entire matter in a just and fair manner. It is further stated in the counter reply that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a catena of judgments that this Tribunal should not examine the correctness of the charges, reappreciate the evidence, or step into the shoes of the Disciplinary Authority and the applicant must establish, with reference to the applicable rules, the prejudice caused to him.

19. In support of their contentions, the respondents have placed reliance on the following judgments, however, the same have neither been referred to nor explained during oral hearing, and it has not been explained as to how the below mentioned judgments are applicable and support the respondents: i. State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, 1996 SCC (L&S)

717. ii. Government of Tamil Nadu v. A. Rajapandian, 1995 SCC (L&S) 292.

KSHITIJ SAXENA

iii. State Bank of Patiala and Others v. Harbhajan Singh Greasy, JT-1996 (5) SC 403. iv. Union of India v. Alok Kumar and Others, 2010 (3) SCCJ 1.

20. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

21. The prosecution witness has categorically stated that there is no documentary evidence to establish the alleged connivance of the applicant. Nevertheless, the connivance has been presumed on the basis of the action taken by the charged officer in respect of the alleged property. While returning findings holding the two charges to be proved, the IO has placed reliance on photographs of the property enclosed with the complaint received from the SHO, Police Station Mundka. However, it is not disputed that the said exhibit depicts a four-storey building, whereas the property in question is only a two-storey building.

22. The IO has also returned the aforesaid findings on the ground that, in rebuttal of the charges, the applicant failed to produce any tenable evidence. Such an approach indicates that the burden was placed upon the applicant to prove his innocence, rather than requiring the prosecution to establish the allegations levelled against him. No reason has been recorded by the respondents for ignoring the findings recorded by their own Deputy Commissioner

KSHITIJ SAXENA

in the speaking order dated 07.04.2022 passed in respect of the said property, wherein it was categorically held that any unauthorised construction on the property had taken place prior to the cut-off date, i.e., 01.06.2014. Admittedly, the applicant has been proceeded against in respect of his tenure from 19.12.2014 to 15.10.2015, which was much prior to the applicant being posted in the concerned Ward.

23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in M.V. Bijlani (Supra), in para 25, has held as under: “25. It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi- criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.”

24. In Gyan Chand Chhattar (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paras 35 to 37, has held as under: “35. In view of the above, law can be summarised that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No

KSHITIJ SAXENA

enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted e fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjectures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct.

36. In fact, initiation of the enquiry against the respondent appears to be the outcome of anguish of superior officers as there had been an agitation by the railway staff demanding the payment of pay and allowances and they detained the train illegally and there has been too much hue and cry for several hours on the railway station. The enquiry officer has taken into consideration the non-existing material and failed to consider the relevant material and finding of all facts recorded by him cannot be sustained in the eye of the law.

37. There could be no case of substantial misdemeanour against the respondent on either of the aforesaid charges except Charge 6 on which major penalty could be imposed. Charge 6 is totally vague and no enquiry could be conducted against the respondent on such a charge. It was basically a case of no evidence on any charge except Charges 4 and 5. In fact, it was a simple case where the respondent employee tailed to prove to be a tactful person or possessing a high standard of administrative capability or firmness or a man possessing quality of leadership. It might be a case of his indecisiveness or lack of presence of mind. It cannot be held that any of the aforesaid charges except Charge 6. may warrant imposition of major punishment of removal. Thus, no interference is required in the matter.”

25. From the aforesaid judgments, it is evident that, to establish allegations in disciplinary proceedings, there must be some evidence in support thereof. However, in the present case, as noted hereinabove, there is no documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations held to have been proved against the applicant. The applicant has specifically raised the ground that no proceedings were initiated against the concerned AE (Bldg.) or

KSHITIJ SAXENA

AXEN, or any other official. This specific contention has not been disputed by the respondents, nor has any material to the contrary been brought on record, even during the course of arguments.

26. Though the respondents have asserted in their counter reply that the competent authority approved the initiation of major penalty proceedings against seven officials, including the applicant, and minor penalty proceedings against two officials, the respondents have not brought to our notice whether any proceedings were actually initiated against the other officials or whether any action was taken against them thereafter.

27. A coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, while quashing the impugned penalty order in OA No. 1900/2019 (Supra), has held in paras 23 and 24 as under: “23. Having gone through the pleadings and having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, we do not find anything to support the contention of Mr. Sinha that the applicant has impliedly waived his right to challenge the impugned order on the ground that a copy of second stage advice of CVC was not supplied to him. Merely because this ground was not taken at the appellate stage by the applicant, does not give rise to the conclusion that he has waived his right.

24. Mr. Sinha finally submitted that if there is any lacuna, the matter can be remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration. We are unable to accede to this submission as well, inasmuch as we are inclined to set aside the penalty order not only on the ground of non-supply of copy of second stage advice of CVC, but also on the ground that the disagreement note was not tentative and the order of penalty is discriminatory.”

KSHITIJ SAXENA

28. In light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the OA deserves to be allowed, and we order accordingly with the following directions: i. The charge memorandum dated 22.05.2019, the inquiry report dated 25.02.2022, the penalty order dated 23.07.2024, and the Appellate Authority’s order dated 09.06.2025 are hereby set aside. ii. The applicant shall be entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions. iii. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within eight weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

29. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J)

/ks/

KSHITIJ SAXENA