Mr. Ram Avtar Sharma, Adv v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL % JUDGMENT (ORAL) 10.02.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner, who retired as Executive Engineer in the DDA, under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 19721, vide memorandum dated 19 January 2018. The petitioner had retired, prior to the said date, on 31 July 2016.

2. Before the enquiry proceedings could take off, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal2 by way of OA 1 “CCS (Pension) Rules” hereinafter 2 “the Tribunal” hereinafter W.P.(C) 5047/2019 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:12.02.2025 18:26:48 1115/2018.

3. The petitioner canvassed, before the Tribunal, one sole ground, which was that the charge sheet had been issued more than four years after the event of misconduct, which constituted its basis and was, therefore, barred by time in view of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii)3 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

4. The Tribunal has, by judgment dated 1 April 2019, rejected the petitioner’s contention and has held the institution of the charge sheet to be within time.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has moved this court by means of the present writ petition.

6. We have heard Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Birbal, learned Counsel for the respondents, at some length.

7. Mr. Birbal, learned Counsel for the respondents, submits that the word “event” as used in Rule 9(2)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules has to be interpreted differently from the word “misconduct”. He has placed reliance on the judgments of two Division Benches of this 3 9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension – ***** (2)(b) service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment, - The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in (ii) before such institution, shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years ***** W.P.(C) 5047/2019 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:12.02.2025 18:26:48 court in ICAR v Haridev Prasad4 and in Ashok Kumar Garg v UOI5. He submits that these decisions hold that the rule making authority has advisedly used the word “event” instead of the word “misconduct” and that the event would continue till the respondent becomes aware of the misconduct committed. He submits that, therefore, the manner in which the petitioner is seeking to interpret the word “event” as being the specific act of misconduct attributed to him, is unduly narrow.

8. As against this, Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of UP v Shri Krishna Pandey6 and Brajendra Singh Yambem v UOI7.

9. Without entering into the aspect of when, actually, the event could be said to have taken place for the purposes of Rule 9(2)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules in the present case, it is clear that the position in law is arguable.

10. Interdiction of disciplinary proceedings without allowing an enquiry to take place has been held, by the Supreme Court, to be a course of action to be adopted in the rarest of cases.

11. From the times of UOI v. A.N. Saxena8 and UOI v. Upendra