Full Judgment
Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
1. Bhim Singh Melha, an Assistant Director with respondent-DDA, the applicant herein, sequel to a departmental enquiry, has been inflicted punishment of reduction of pay by one stage with cumulative effect vide order dated 5.1.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority in that behalf. The appeal preferred by him against the order aforesaid has since been dismissed vide order dated 8.1.2010 passed by the appellate authority. These are the orders that have been challenged by him in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. There may not be any need to give facts in details as we are of the opinion that orders passed both by the disciplinary and appellate authorities are cryptic and non speaking, wherein the defence projected by the applicant has not been taken into consideration, least discussed and adjudicated upon.
2. The applicant faced departmental enquiry on the charges as mentioned in the statement of imputation of misconduct, Annexure-II with the memorandum dated 28.3.2007, which reads as follows:
“Shri Bhim Singh Melha, while working as Assistant in L.A.B. (Housing) Branch during 1998-99 was responsible for not taking action for cancellation of lease of flat o.289, pocket C-8, sector-8, Rohini due to unauthorized constructions and misuse in the flat.
File bearing No.24(1100)87/RO/NP related to flat No.289, Pkt. C-8, Sector-8, Rohini was dealt with by Shri Bhim Singh Mehla, Asstt. It is revealed from the file that on 13.11.97 there was unauthorized construction in the said flat and the flat was also being misused. Show cause notice was issued to the allottee on 25.11.97. Final notice was issued on 12.1.98 asking the allottee to remove unauthorized construction and misuse from the flat within 15 days failing which lease of the flat will be liable to be cancelled. In the matter of lease cancellation of the flat, various letters dated 16.9.98, 10.12.98, 15.4.99 etc. were sent from Vig. Branch to LAB(H). the LAB(H) vide letters dated 2.9.98, 17.11.98 and 28.12.98 replied that action regarding cancellation of lease of the said flat is under process. Subsequently, LAB(H) vide letter dated 13.7.99 replied that lease of the flat will not be cancelled as LG has ordered that no pick and choose policy is to be adopted. It was also intimated that survey of the area is being conducted and final action will be taken uniformly and transparently. Action for cancellation of lease deed could not be initiated on pick and choose basis does not appear to be correct. The instant case was not a pick and choose case. During site inspection on 5.8.97, unauthorized construction was observed and final notice for cancellation of lease deed was issued, but lease of the flat was not cancelled and case for conversion from lease deed to freehold was processed by Shri Bhim Singh Mehla. This is a lapse on the part of Shri Bhim Singh Mehla, Asstt. The flat was ultimately got converted into freehold.
By his above act, Shri Bhim Singh Mehla, has exhibited absolute lack of devotion to his duties and integrity thereby contravened Rule 4.1(i) and (iii) of DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulation, 1999 as made applicable to employees of the Authority.”
[[The enquiry officer returned a finding of guilt against the applicant vide its report dated 5.5.2008. Copy of the enquiry report was made available to the applicant who made representation thereagainst, wherein he inter alia mentioned that being a dealing hand, as per rule, he was neither competent to cancel the lease nor to reply to the vigilance with his own signatures. He further stated that he had handed over the charge in August, 1999 and as per record it would be seen that the conversion application had been received in July, 2000 and the conversion process had been initiated by some other dealing hand in July, 2000, which would be evident from the notings/record (page 13/N) in the concerned file No.F.24(1100)87/LAB(H) which could be seen/verified if required. He also stated that when he assumed the charge in July, 1998, the show cause notice dated 13.11.1997 and final notice dated 12.1.1998 had already been issued by the previous dealing assistant, and that both the notices aforesaid were approximately six months old. He then stated that during his tenure, he had put up the case each and every time with full facts which were required as per duties of a dealing assistant, which had been pointed out in the deposition of Shri K. K. Gupta, SW-1 in the hearing before the I.O., and that even the I.O. had mentioned this fact in his findings that in the very first note of the applicant dated 4.4.1998 (page 8/N), he had recommended for cancellation of the lease of the flat (reference to assessment of evidence 6.3). He further stated that he had never proposed for non cancellation of the lease as alleged in the charge-sheet, and that even in his latest note dated 21.5.1999 (page 12/N), he had put up the case after giving full facts for due consideration and orders, and further that each and every reply dated 3.9.1998, 17.11.1998, 28.12.1998 and 13.7.1999 had been sent to vigilance after getting necessary/due approval of the competent authority, and that in each letter, except the last one, it was intimated that the case was under process for cancellation and would be informed accordingly. The applicant also stated that no assurance/confirmation of cancellation had been made, as alleged. Insofar as pointing out to the pick and choose policy guidelines of LG was concerned, the applicant stated that the said fact had been admitted by then Deputy Director Smt. Bala Chaddha (reference to her approval/orders dated 27.5.1999, p.12/N), and later on by Deputy Director Shri O. P. Gupta, SW-II (reference to his deposition dated 9.10.2007 in the hearing before the I.O., and his reply letter dated 16.9.2004 to vigilance). There are other pleas as well raised by the applicant, but at this stage, it would not be necessary to refer to the same in their entirety. All that we would like to mention is that the applicant had raised points which were certainly debatable and required consideration. Despite that, the order that came to be passed by the disciplinary authority would not mention any of the points raised by the applicant. In the first four un-numbered paragraphs of the impugned order dated 5.1.2009, mention is only of the history of the case. The fifth un-numbered paragraph, which only is relevant part of the order, reads as follows:
“and WHEREAS the undersigned being the Disciplinary Authority has gone through the reply of the C.O., IO Report and facts on record and observed that the instant case was not a pick and choose case. During site inspection on 5.8.97, unauthorized construction was observed and final notice for cancellation of lease deed was issued, but lease of the flat was not cancelled and case for conversion from lease deed to freehold was processed by Shri Bhim Singh Mehla and the flat was ultimately got converted into freehold. Thus the undersigned has come to the conclusion that ends of justice will be met, if the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage (equal to one increment) in the pay-scale held by Sh. Bhim Singh Mehla is imposed with cumulative effect for one year. During the penalty period he will not earn the increment and the penalty will have the effect of postponing his future increments.”
Last paragraph is only as regards holding the applicant guilty and inflicting punishment upon him. The applicant filed appeal against the order aforesaid wherein, he reiterated the points taken by him in his representation, as mentioned above, with further additions and elaborations. The appellate authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 8.1.2010. First six un-numbered paragraphs of the order of the appellate authority are only history of the case, and the last paragraph, which alone may be relevant, reads as follows:
“NOW THEREFORE in exercise of the powers conferred by Regulation 32(C) and E(2) of the DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999 and after having gone through the charges against Sh. Bhim Singh Mehla, AD, the orders of the disciplinary authority, the contents of the appeal and the facts of the case on record observed that Sh. Mehla has not taken action for cancellation of lease of Flat No.289, Pkt.C, Sect.8, Rohini on account of unauthorized construction though it was not a case of pick and choose policy, which was ultimately got converted into free hold. No new facts have been brought out by him in the present appeal. After careful consideration I see no reasons to interfere with the orders of disciplinary authority. The penalty imposed stands. Hence the appeal of Sh. Bhim Singh Mehla, A.D. is rejected.”
3. If the enquiry report may be sacrosanct and may have to be accepted as it is, there would have been no need to provide under rules that copy of the same needs to be supplied, for the delinquent employee to make representation thereagainst. In the present case, it appears that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have thought so. The defence thus projected by the applicant against the report of the enquiry officer in his representation and appeal respectively, has gone abegging. Sine qua non of judicial, quasi judicial or even administrative orders, which may adversely affect a citizen, is that the same must contain reasons, and inasmuch as, the impugned orders lack the very requisites of a proper order, the same need to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority, who would apply its mind to the defence projected by the applicant and if the same may not have any substance according to its views, a proper reasoned order rejecting the pleas raised by the applicant shall be recorded, and if the grievance of the applicant may subsist and he may file an appeal, the appellate authority too would, even though in brevity, give reasons to reject the defence projected by the applicant. We may not pass any orders as regards consequential reliefs to be granted to the applicant at this stage, as we are of the view that since the impugned orders have been set aside without going into merits of the controversy, the said reliefs would abide the final event.
4. The Original Application is disposed of in the manner indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.