VIJAY KUMAR SALUJA  Vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

W.P. (C) 799/2021 Page 1 of 3
$~Suppl. -2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P. (C) 799/2021

VIJAY KUMAR SALUJA …..Petitioner
Through: Mr.Mahesh Bhardwaj, Advocate.

Versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.
…..Respondents
Through: Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate.

% Date of Decision: 29th January , 2021

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN , J (Oral) :
CM APPL. 2040/2021
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
1. Present writ petition has been filed challe nging the order dated 19W.P. (C) 799/2021 & CM APPL. 2039/2021
th
October, 2020 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal [CAT] as well as
for quashing the C harge Memo dated 20th June, 2016. The p etitioner , a
former Assistant Engineer in DDA, also prays for a direction to the
respondents to gr ant all consequential benefits including gratuity/ leave
encashment etc. along with 12% interest.
2021:DHC:349-DB W.P. (C) 799/2021 Page 2 of 3
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the CAT erred in
dismissing the petitioner’s application on the basis of para no.2 of the
respondent’s counter -affidavit without considering the issue of inordinate
delay in issuing the impugned Charge M emo. He emphasizes that the
respondents had only mentioned a few dates in their affidavit before CAT
and there was no explanation for delay of eighteen years in ini tiating the
disciplinary action.
3. He also states that the CAT failed to consider that the impugned
Charge Memo ha d been issued malafide ly, with the sole intent to deprive the
petitioner of his further promotion and retirement benefits.
4. A perusal of the pape r book reveals that the petitioner has, as of now,
retired as Executive Engineer from DDA. The allegation against the
petitioner in the charge memo issued in 2016 is that he had shown lack of
care and supervision during construction of SFS houses by DDA be tween
1998 and 2001 and as a result, the said structures had shown structural
stress.
5. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the CAT that the
delay is a question of fact to be decided o n the facts of each case.
6. In the present matter, CAT was sati sfied with DDA’ s explanation that
the C harge Memo was delayed as the flats had remained vacant for a long
time awaiting water and electricity connections and as soon as the flats were
allotted, the allottees complained about major structural defects. Ther eafter,
the defects were removed and it was decided that the persons who were
responsible shall be identified.
7. It was only after the preliminary inquiry was complete d that the
disciplinary authority had issued the C harge Memo to the petitioner.
2021:DHC:349-DB W.P. (C) 799/2021 Page 3 of 3
Consequ ently, delay in the present case, if any, at this threshold stage of the
inquiry , does not absolve the petitioner of the charge of lack of supervision
and care.
8. In any event, houses are not meant to last for a short period of fifteen
to twenty years. Th e stairs, roofs and balconies of the houses, which had to
be extensively dismantle d/recast/repaired/rectified in the present case , were
meant to last for a very long period, if not a life -time .
9. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the CAT does not call
for interference in writ jurisdiction.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed along with pending
application. However, it is clarified that the observations made in the present
order are only for deciding the present writ petition. None of the
observations in the said order , including on the aspect of prejudice, if any
caused to the petitioner due to alleged delay in issuance of the Charge
Memo, shall prejudice the petitioner in the ongoing inquiry.

MANMOHAN, J

ASHA MENON, J
JANUARY 29, 2021
KA

2021:DHC:349-DB