D. K. SRIVASTAVA vs HOUSING & URBAN DEV. COPORATION LTD. (HUDCO)

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 10.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 01.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 01.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 14040/2018, CM APPL. 42419/2021, CM APPL.4844/2026 & CM APPL. 4845/2026 D. K. SRIVASTAVA .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in-person. versus HOUSING & URBAN DEV.COPORATION LTD. (HUDCO) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sonal Kumar Singh and Mr. Yashvardhan Singh Gohil, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.: 1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner assails the order dated 11.10.2018 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2659/2014, [hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟] whereby the challenge to the memorandum of charge dated 12.10.2010, the dismissal Order dated 29.09.2011, and the appellate order dated 06.02.2014, came to be rejected. 2. The controversy in the present Petition is whether the disciplinary proceedings, culminating in the Petitioner‟s dismissal from service on the allegation that he had lodged a false complaint/FIR imputing demand of illegal gratification to senior Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 14040/2018 Signing Date:01.04.2026 11:49:14 Page 1 of 10 officers of HUDCO, were sustainable in law; whether the ex parte inquiry stood vitiated for want of fair opportunity; and whether the Tribunal was justified in declining interference. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The Petitioner was appointed as a Law Officer in HUDCO on 17.01.1990. In the late 1990s, on the basis of two complaints made by his wife, criminal proceedings came to be registered against him, leading to his arrest and consequential suspension from service, which re