R.C. Meena vs Lt. Governor, Government Of NCT Of Delhi & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant initially joined the service of Railways as Junior Engineer in 1986. Twelve years thereafter, he was selected and appointed as Assistant Engineer by way of direct recruitment in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He filed OA No.4162/2011 alleging that the respondents have denied him two increments on the basis of a punishment said to have been imposed against him but neither he was issued a charge memo nor any inquiry was conducted, much less the order of punishment was supplied. It was also pleaded that when he made efforts under the Right to Information Act, 2005, he was informed that the entire file is missing and a complaint was also made in this behalf.

It is stated that during the pendency of the OA, a copy of the order dated 06.12.2005 has been furnished to the applicant. He has immediately filed OA No.1239/2015 challenging the charge memo. While OA No.4162/2011 was withdrawn, OA No.1239/2015 was disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to pursue the remedy of appeal. Accordingly, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. The appeal was rejected through an order dated 28.11.2016. The same is challenged in this OA.

The applicant contends that the view taken by the Appellate Authority (AA for short) that the disciplinary proceedings may have taken place with the knowledge of applicant, is not supported by any document or record whatever. He submits that once he was informed by the concerned authority that the record itself is not available, the inference drawn by the AA cannot be supported in law.

The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit reiterating the contents of the order of the AA.

We heard Shri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.

The applicant was imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments, without any cumulative effect; through order dated 06.12.2005. Complaining that the increments were denied to him without any basis, he filed OA No.4162/2011. During the pendency of the OA, copy of the order of punishment dated 06.12.2005 was furnished to him. Though he made an effort to challenge that order by filing a separate OA, the same was disposed of leaving it open to the applicant to file an appeal before the AA. The AA has undertaken extensive discussion about the matter. It was observed that the order of punishment was implemented in the year 2006 & 2007 in the form of denial of increment to the applicant and it cannot be believed that the applicant was not aware of it.

We are in total agreement with the views expressed by the AA. The applicant who is a well versed and experienced officer cannot be expected to be unaware of the denial of increments for two consecutive years. Had he made an effort at the relevant point of time, the reasons would have certainly been revealed. Further, the Accounts Department would not deny the increments in the absence of any specific order. The mere fact that the relevant file could not be traced for some time, cannot be a factor to doubt the very authenticity of the proceedings.

We do not find any merit in the OA. The same is accordingly dismissed. All ancillary applications stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.