ORDER
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.5.1994 passed by the Disciplinary authority of the petitioner imposing upon him he penalty of stoppage of two increments without future effect which was communicated to him under letter dated 26.5.1994 as also against the order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal.
2. The chargesheet for minor penalty was issued to the petitioner under Memorandum dated 15.10.1993 under regulation 8-A of DMC Services (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1969. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid memorandum of 6.12.1993. Thereafter the petitioner was heard in person by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner (P) on 24.2.1994. The disciplinary authority thereafter came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved and proposed to inflict upon the petitioner the penalty of stoppage of two increments without future effect on him and accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 7.3.1993 asking him to submit his representation within 10 days of the receipt of the show cause notice. The petitioner submitted his reply on 13.4.1994. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the reply of the petitioner passed an order dated 5.5.1994 imposing penalty of stoppage of two increments without future effect against the petitioner and the said order was communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 26.5.1994.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action the petitioner submitted an appeal. The appellate authority namely- the Commissioner heard the petitioner in person on 11.11.1994 and after considering the entire record rejected the appeal on 11.11.1994, which was communicated t o the petitioner vide memorandum dated 2.12.1994. Immediately the after the petitioner field a writ petition in this court which was registered as CWP No.1779/1995 wherein the petitioner sought for quashing of the orders of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also against the order rejecting his appeal. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this court on 25.9.1996 with a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with rules and regulations. The representation of the petitioner was considered by the respondent pursuant to the aforesaid order of this court and after the period of punishment was over his case for promotion was considered and the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Head Clerk on 20.11.1996. But even thereafter the petitioner field are presentation dated 27.2.1997 before the Commissioner praying for quashing the punishment inflicted on the petitioner. The said representation of the petitioner was also placed before the Commissioner, who is the appellate authority, who held that the said representation was not maintainable, and the said decision was communicated under letter dated 27.3.1997 and thereafter the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in this court seeking for quashing of the order of punishment passed against him.
4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner and communicated under memo dated 15.10.1993 were baseless and without and merit. It was submitted by him hat the allegation against the petitioner in the charge memo was that he had recommended the case for allotment of additional land to the existing The Bazari holders in the analogy of a case claimed to have been done in Sadar Pahare Ganj Zone although in fact no such recommendation was made by the petitioner nor any report was submitted by him as alleged in the charge levelled against him.
5.In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to extract below the relevant portion of the charge levelled against the petitioner:
“That Shri Shiv Lal, Licensing Inspector submitted a wrong and factually incorrect report and recommended allotment of open space in from side to the tech bazari holders without properly verifying the facts of the case relating to the allotment of the additional space to the bazari holders at Chitra Gupta Road. He thus tried to mislead his superiors and to help the above stall holders.
Shri Shiv Lal, Licensing Inspector, thereby contravened rule 3(1) (i) & (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as made applicable to the employees of MCD.”
6. My attention was laos drawn by the counsel appearing for the petitioner to the aforesaid alleged recommendations made by the petitioner which appear at Annexure 1 at page 14 the writ petition. The relevant portion thereof is also extracted below:-
“May kindly peruse letter dated 4.1.1987 from Resident Punjabi Market, Vyapar Mandal, Opposite Kamla Market, New Delhi. The members of this Mandal visited the Zonal Superintendent, City Zone, personally and delivered the photostat copies of the letters Along with recommendatory letter of Chairman, Standing Committee, as the previous papers are not readily available.
The President Punjabi Market Vyapar Mandal is requesting for having the bazar of 10′ wide in front of their 50 Rehri Stalls in Punjabi Market, opposite Kamala Market, New Delhi. In a similar case such type of tech bazari has already been allotted at Chitra Gupta Market in S.P. Zone (photostat copy of G-8 receipt is attached).
In this connection, the site inspected and found that the 20′ width idle space is lying unused in front of their stalls holders are using this space by placing their items/articles etc. there.
There 50 Rehri stalls were allotted in 1968 to the persons @ Rs.37.50 paise per month to run their business. There is no traffic hazard in this market or at this place.
In view of he above, t his idle space size 7’x5′ out of 20′ width can be of well use to them and would be an adding income to the Municipal Corporation @ Rs.37.50 paise per month per stall. The case may be considered for allotment of tech bazari basis.”
7. Since it was submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the alleged recommendation made by him on 5.1.1998 could not be termed as a recommendation and that it was neither misleading nor false, it would be necessary to look into the aforesaid contention in the light of the contents of the aforesaid two documents. In his report dated 5.1.1988 the petitioner, who was at that relevant time working as Licensing Inspector clearly recorded that ‘the President, Punjabi Market Vyapar Mandal is requesting for having tech bazari of 10′ wide in front of their 50 Rehri Stalls in Punjabi Market, Opposite Kamla Market, New Delhi’ and that ‘in a similar case such type of tech bazari has already been allotted at Chitra Gupta Market, in S.P. Zone., He also stated that in respect of the same he had inspected the site and found that the 20’ width idle space is lying unused in front of their stalls and therefore,, the said idle space could be well used by the said Vyapar Mandal, which would be adding an income to the Municipal Corporation, and that their case can be considered for allotment on the bazari basis. It is borne out from the record that the bazari in respect of Chitra Gupta Market in S.P.Zone was given by the respondents nt at the front but was made in respect of the space which was lying vacant at the back of the stalls. Therefore, an incorrect statement was made by the petitioner in his report that in a similar case at Chitra Gupta Market in S.P.Zone tech bazari right has been given in similar circumstances in front of their stalls which in fact was not a correct statement. The allotment of additional space to the stall holders at Chitra Gupta Market was made in respect of the space which was lying vacant at the back of the stalls whereas in the present a case the report of the petitioner was for allotment of land for tech bazari rights in front of the stalls which was actually meant for widening of the road, foot path etc. and therefore, could not be said to be idle space lying vacant. The petitioner as a Licensing Inspector recommended for such allotment giving incorrect position and the said report was considered by the higher authorities and was made the basis for taking an action. The report submitted by the petitioner was therefore, misleading to the aforesaid extent. The petitioner was given opportunity of hearing both before the Disciplinary Authority as also before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the petitioner rightly has not alleged any violation of the principles of natural justice in the present case. The only allegation that is made in the present petition is that his report was neither misleading nor the same could be considered as recommendation.
From the facts delineated above, it is apparent and established that not only the report of he petitioner was misleading and false but in the said report the petitioner specifically stated that the said idle space in front of the stalls could be well used by the said Vyapar Mandal, which would also add income to the Municipal Corporation and the case may be considered for allotment on tech bazari basis. Threrfore, in the said report a definite recommendation was made by the Licensing Inspector namely-the petitioner, open the basis of which the matter was processed and was sent to the higher authorities for approval.
8.In another nothing dated 20.1.1988 the petitioner again stated that this case is identical with that of S.P.Zone and therefore, could be placed before the higher authorities.The punishment awarded to the petitioner is also not harsh and in my considered opinion the same is commensurate with the charge levelled against the petitioner.
9. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed but without any orders to costs.