AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The applicant is working as MTS in the Central Public Works Department (CPWD). He was allotted the government accommodation at quarter No Z-73, Type 'A' Timar Pur, Delhi. The Directorate of Estates, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi initiated the proceedings against him alleging that he rented the quarter to one Shri Rakesh, working in Karkardooma Court. An order of eviction was also passed against him. Challenging that, the applicant filed a case in Tis Hazari Court and that was dismissed. Thereupon, he approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing W.P. (C) No.3181/2018. It is stated that the Hon'ble High Court granted liberty to the applicant to avail the remedy of appeal under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. He thereafter preferred appeal under the said Act and the case is still pending.
The disciplinary authority issued a charge memo dated 14.06.2019 to the applicant, under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The only charge against him was that he was subleased the premises allotted to him. Reference was also made to the various proceedings initiated in that behalf. This O.A is filed challenging the said charge memo. The applicant contends that once the matter is pending before the Civil Court, it is not competent for the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
We heard Mr. Sujeet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Rajiv R. Raj, learned counsel for respondents, through video conferencing.
The applicant was issued charge memo dated 14.06.2019. He submitted an explanation and further proceedings are pending. This OA is filed challenging the very charge memo. It is not the case of the applicant that the authority who issued the charge memo, does not have jurisdiction or competence. The mere fact that the proceedings in relation to the eviction are pending, hardly constitutes the ground for setting aside the charge memo. The purport of proceedings before the Tis Hazari Court on the one hand and those before the disciplinary authority on the other, are substantially different. The disciplinary authority can proceed against an employee even where the charge memo is based on proceedings before the competent Court. The question of interference with charge memo does not arise. The applicant can raise all the points in the ongoing inquiry.
We do not find any merit in the O.A. It is accordingly dismissed. However, we are of the view that even if the charge framed against the applicant is proved, it may not entail in any revere punishment.
There shall be no order as to costs.