New Delhi: Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by a govt officer difficult proceedings for allegedly misusing his place in a delicate land acquisition matter.The court docket refused aid to the DANICS (Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service) officer difficult a disciplinary penalty imposed on him and upheld an earlier determination of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in reference to the penalty imposed for the misconduct.
In 2016, when the officer was serving as a land acquisition collector within the metropolis, he had, in accordance with a grievance, issued an order permitting the refund of greater than Rs 3.3 crore and handled the acquisition proceedings as concluded. It was delivered to the eye of senior authorities that this order was handed after his switch and he allegedly preponed the date of the listening to within the case.Following this, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated towards the officer, with sufficient proof discovered to border expenses towards him on one account: that the officer had acted in haste and with out following correct process, which constituted misconduct.The disciplinary authority had imposed penalties, together with discount of pay scale for 3 years, suspension of promotion throughout that interval, postponement of future increments, and alteration of seniority. On enchantment, the govt. authority upheld the penalty.The officer challenged the punishment earlier than CAT, which dismissed his plea in July 2021, although it allowed him to submit a illustration looking for discount of the penalty. When the illustration was additionally rejected, the officer approached the excessive court docket in 2025, almost 4 years after the CAT determination.Dealing first with the delay, the excessive court docket famous that the officer had failed to offer an ample clarification for the delay in approaching the court docket. It additionally rejected the argument that rejection of his illustration constituted a contemporary reason behind motion, clarifying that CAT gave him liberty just for the reconsideration of the penalty and didn’t reopen the case.The court docket dominated that the petition was barred by delay and laches, however added that even on the difficulty of benefit, it discovered no justification to intrude.Under Land Acquisition Act, the court docket noticed, as soon as land vests with govt, the land acquisition collector has no authority to revive the land or reverse the acquisition by accepting a refund of compensation. The officer didn’t determine any authorized provision allowing him to difficulty such an order, the court docket famous, because it additionally dismissed the officer’s declare that he had acted in a quasi-judicial capability, basing his determination on authorized opinion.The excessive court docket said that in disciplinary proceedings, courts may intervene solely in circumstances of significant procedural illegality or violation of pure justice, neither of which was demonstrated within the present case.The officer’s plea of discrimination was additionally rejected, the place he had claimed his successor was granted aid in the identical matter. HC discovered the successor merely carried out the order slightly than passing it.
