Land acquisition case: No relief for DANICS officer

New Delhi: Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by a govt officer challenging proceedings for allegedly misusing his position in a sensitive land acquisition matter.The court refused relief to the DANICS (Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service) officer challenging a disciplinary penalty imposed on him and upheld an earlier decision of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in connection with the penalty imposed for the misconduct.
In 2016, when the officer was serving as a land acquisition collector in the city, he had, according to a complaint, issued an order allowing the refund of more than Rs 3.3 crore and treated the acquisition proceedings as concluded. It was brought to the attention of senior authorities that this order was passed after his transfer and he allegedly preponed the date of the hearing in the case.Following this, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the officer, with enough evidence found to frame charges against him on one account: that the officer had acted in haste and without following proper procedure, which constituted misconduct.The disciplinary authority had imposed penalties, including reduction of pay scale for three years, suspension of promotion during that period, postponement of future increments, and alteration of seniority. On appeal, the govt authority upheld the penalty.The officer challenged the punishment before CAT, which dismissed his plea in July 2021, though it allowed him to submit a representation seeking reduction of the penalty. When the representation was also rejected, the officer approached the high court in 2025, nearly four years after the CAT decision.Dealing first with the delay, the high court noted that the officer had failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay in approaching the court. It also rejected the argument that rejection of his representation constituted a fresh cause of action, clarifying that CAT gave him liberty only for the reconsideration of the penalty and did not reopen the case.The court ruled that the petition was barred by delay and laches, but added that even on the issue of merit, it found no justification to interfere.Under Land Acquisition Act, the court observed, once land vests with govt, the land acquisition collector has no authority to restore the land or reverse the acquisition by accepting a refund of compensation. The officer failed to identify any legal provision permitting him to issue such an order, the court noted, as it also dismissed the officer's claim that he had acted in a quasi-judicial capacity, basing his decision on legal opinion.The high court stated that in disciplinary proceedings, courts might intervene only in cases of serious procedural illegality or violation of natural justice, neither of which was demonstrated in the current case.The officer's plea of discrimination was also rejected, where he had claimed his successor was granted relief in the same matter. HC found the successor merely implemented the order rather than passing it.