TORHI SINGH Vs. DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed with the erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) as an Inspector during the relevant period. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 23rd September, 1998 on the allegation that he had energised a commercial light connection sanctioned against K.No. 614-121778 in favour of one Shri Girbar Singh at premises of one Mr. Rakesh Kumar on the main road of Babarpur and not at premises no. 20-A-3/17, Vishwakarma Road, Babarpur, Shahdara where it was actually to be energised. THE charge-sheet had been issued pursuant to a complaint made against the petitioner by one Nepal Singh resident of Village Babarpur who had alleged that the petitioner had energised the commercial light connection at the wrong premises intentionally after charging illegal gratification from Rakesh. THE petitioner refuted the said allegation and in his reply to the charge-sheet he claimed that he had energised the electricity connection at the premises of Rakesh who had claimed himself to be Girbar Singh and during his inspection of the premises where the electricity connection was energised the said Rakesh had put up a name plate outside his shop showing the name of Girbar Singh and premises no. as 20-A-3/17, Vishwakarma Road, Babarpur, Shahdara and that Rakesh had produced all the relevant documents issued by the DESU authorities such as receipt of security deposit and service line charge issued by DESU for getting the new electricity connection. He claimed that he was satisfied with the identity of that Rakesh since he had produced all the relevant documents which are supposed to be in possession of a genuine applicant who applies for new electricity connection. He also claimed that nobody else had come forward with the requisite documents in the name of Girbar Singh for energisation of the electricity connection for many days and he had energised the connection at the shop of Rakesh believing him to be Girbar Singh. THE petitioner had further claimed that in the vigilance enquiry (which appears to have been conducted before initiation of regular enquiry against the petitioner) Girbar Singh had been examined and he had claimed that he had neither applied for any electricity connection nor had he signed any documents which were available in the department's file which showed that the officials of the Commercial Department of DESU had made a case for a new connection on the basis of forged documents and he had been made the scape goat.

(2.) THE reply given by the petitioner having not been found to be satisfactory the respondent decided to initiate a regular departmental enquiry against him to look into the aforesaid charge. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry and in the enquiry on behalf of the respondent, the complainant Nepal Singh, Lallu, the landlord of the premises where actually the petitioner had energised the electricity connection and two officials of DESU were examined while the petitioner examined one Jagmal Singh who was the father of Rakesh Kumar in whose shop in Babarpur the new electricity connection in the name of Girbar Singh had been energised. THE petitioner also examined one Tota Ram who was earlier employed with DESU and who had permitted energisation of the electricity connection at the shop of Rakesh Kumar after inspecting his premises along with the petitioner. One H.S. Das, who was also earlier employed with the DESU, was also examined by the petitioner in his defence about the procedure to be followed while providing new electricity connections.

(3.) THE writ petition was opposed by the respondent primarily on the ground that the petitioner had been dismissed from service after an enquiry had been held against him in which all the principles of natural justice were observed and full opportunity was given to him to establish his innocence and, therefore, there was no scope for any interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.